Has any of you spoken with a "climate denier" lately, or is every member of this choir simply preaching to all the other members? I mean if you really want to spread the Gospel, you need to be on the next plane to Mecca. Furthermore, you must understand the data well enough to explain it and explain it simply. Saying "my big brother can lick Exxon's big brother because he has more advanced degrees" is merely going to enrage people who can't spell "Ph.D." and resent anyone who has a high school diploma. Some of these people are mechanically astute and might actually get the message if it were stripped of excess jargon and the special aroma of condescension. It would help if some major periodical published a clear, simple explanation of why the earth is warming up and why that's dangerous. I am sure I have missed several such articles in the Times in the last month alone, but you know it might almost merit a few permanent column inches to just keep an explanation in the paper all the time for handy reference. I mean, that's if you really think it's important...
5
Extremely well-reasoned and written David thank you.
In this land "of droughts and flooding rains" ("My Country" - Dorothea Mackellar) we are well-acquainted with such as has hit Houston. My heart aches (as we say) thinking of the damage done that will take years to repair, the lives lost or ruined never, or perhaps never, to be restored. However I can't but reflect on the irony of "Fossil Fuel Central" being hit by an unprecedented storm undoubtedly worsened, if not born, of fossil fuel burning. I hope this event inspires more Texans - and Americans generally - to accept the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming and to seek to put fossil fuel mining and use in the past where it belongs - as quickly as possible. I sincerely wish all Houstonians all the best in their endurance of and recovery from this tragic event.
In this land "of droughts and flooding rains" ("My Country" - Dorothea Mackellar) we are well-acquainted with such as has hit Houston. My heart aches (as we say) thinking of the damage done that will take years to repair, the lives lost or ruined never, or perhaps never, to be restored. However I can't but reflect on the irony of "Fossil Fuel Central" being hit by an unprecedented storm undoubtedly worsened, if not born, of fossil fuel burning. I hope this event inspires more Texans - and Americans generally - to accept the reality of Anthropogenic Global Warming and to seek to put fossil fuel mining and use in the past where it belongs - as quickly as possible. I sincerely wish all Houstonians all the best in their endurance of and recovery from this tragic event.
3
Yes POTUS, " Winter still comes every year!"
As Pete Seeger mournfully sang back in the grey days of Vietnam: " We're waist deep in the big muddy, and the old fool says PUSH ON!" Yes Virginia, there's no such thing as Climate change! It's just mad science dreamed up by people who want to bankrupt the U.S. economy. Something concocted by Morgus the Magnificent...
As Pete Seeger mournfully sang back in the grey days of Vietnam: " We're waist deep in the big muddy, and the old fool says PUSH ON!" Yes Virginia, there's no such thing as Climate change! It's just mad science dreamed up by people who want to bankrupt the U.S. economy. Something concocted by Morgus the Magnificent...
2
Trump and his supporters scoff at the notion Climate Change is more deadly than Isis, more destructive than any terrorist organization. What happened in Houston could never be done by a terrorist organization unless they exploded an atomic bomb. There will be more Houston's. The costs will be enormous...and these idiots pretend like Climate Change doesn't exist and deliberately look to increase its force by doing nothing.
5
Here we go. The faith-based religion of climate change masquerading as news.
3
Where I live, climate change is never discussed, except to dismiss the very idea. It is, as an acquaintance said, a ridiculous hypothesis. I am concerned enough by their rancor that I keep my mouth shut. Yes, this is America, 2017.
3
People can deny if they wish, but climate change will keep punching us in the teeth until we put our mouthguards in and go to work. And, it will keep punching for decades, due to the lag times in the climate system.
Another good analogy for climate-change driven storms is baseball and steriods: do you know which of Bonds' or Sosa's individual homers were due to steroids? Of course not... But we know full well that their inflated HR totals were due to steroids. All you need to know, really.
Another good analogy for climate-change driven storms is baseball and steriods: do you know which of Bonds' or Sosa's individual homers were due to steroids? Of course not... But we know full well that their inflated HR totals were due to steroids. All you need to know, really.
5
David Leonhardt has no expertise in climate and this column lacks any factual basis. It is propaganda. Harvey was strong but was not an unusually strong storm and its severity had zero to do with climate change. Harvey's severity is attributable to a lack of steering currents in the atmosphere that caused the storm to effectively stall. This resulted in the extraordinary rain totals. Nothing more and nothing less. While unusual, this had absolutely nothing to do with climate change. For Mr. Leonardt to state otherwise is disingenuous if not an outright, deliberate fabrication.
3
Too late. We are much too stupid a species to not poison ourselves into oblivion. I feel like Kirsten Dunst's character in Melancholia.
1
what a joke article...in the past it was blame the gods...we must have done something wrong.... today it is blame ourselves...we most have done something wrong. When are we going to naturally accept that storms, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, blizzards, solar eclipses, lunar eclipses, typhoons, tsunamis, rain, wind and fire all naturally occur in our world and we simply have to deal with it? From my perspective, I drive a hybrid, only operate LED light bulbs, eat locally organic food for 10+ years and challenging situations keep happening....I'm not to blame...or am I for all natural disasters? It's my fault Houston is under water....please send me the bill.
1
This is a dumb, opportunistic argument using scientific THEORIES to make the case for government control of EVERYTHING. Please try to think through your love of everything government to solve the object of your fears. Carbon dioxide is not the evil of the world to defeat. It's a fool's game to think you know how to solve the flooding in Houston. Don't forget that HUMANS exhale carbon dioxide. We all know where this is going. Population control. Because Man is evil. This is a lie from Satan himself. You are merely a self deceived pawn.
1
The oceans are warming at an accelerating rate. I have read that numerous times. Last week when I took a short trip to Mexico`s beaches to swim in the Pacific Ocean, I was shocked when I stepped into the surf and found it as warm as a pleasant warm bath. In my 74 years, I never remember the ocean to be so warm.
Read or watch The Merchants of Doubt and you will find that the same preachers of climate denial hired by Exxon Mobil and the Petroleum Industry were also hired by the tobacco industry to preach the benefits of smoking. Wake up America, we only have this precious planet to live on. Harvey i9s just the beginning.
Read or watch The Merchants of Doubt and you will find that the same preachers of climate denial hired by Exxon Mobil and the Petroleum Industry were also hired by the tobacco industry to preach the benefits of smoking. Wake up America, we only have this precious planet to live on. Harvey i9s just the beginning.
2
Not just Texas. My patch of No Cal got record amounts of rain this winter. Although not a hurricane it was one long winter of cold showering rain. The roofers and house painters are happy.
1
Personally I think Rick Perry should fly back to Texas and hold another stadium prayer meeting inviting people to ask God to reverse his earlier request in the same stadium for more rain.
5
My simple experience , having grown up in the Italian Alps many years ago..., I remember having heavy snow precipitations EVERY winter , sometimes precluding our teachers from reaching by bus the school of our village .
According to my family in Italy , winters have been for at least three decades extremely mild , with minimal snow , no accumulation, just dusting .
Ski resorts once famous for their slopes , now have to make artificial snow to stay in business . The Alpine glaciers are melting fast .
Summers are getting hotter and drier .
Wild life feels this climate change , with many birds escaping the hills for higher altitudes in the mountains . Same phenomenon for Alpine flora .
Needless to say , I am a strong believer of man induced climate change .
Out of control demographic explosion , fossile use etc...
According to my family in Italy , winters have been for at least three decades extremely mild , with minimal snow , no accumulation, just dusting .
Ski resorts once famous for their slopes , now have to make artificial snow to stay in business . The Alpine glaciers are melting fast .
Summers are getting hotter and drier .
Wild life feels this climate change , with many birds escaping the hills for higher altitudes in the mountains . Same phenomenon for Alpine flora .
Needless to say , I am a strong believer of man induced climate change .
Out of control demographic explosion , fossile use etc...
2
I have been reading about climate change for years. In September, 2005 my friend Sister Theresa Moher read from the Boston Globe that Hurricane Katrina's real name was Global Warming. How come we still debate climate change? The encyclical On Care or our Common Home, Laudato Si, is a letter written by Pope Francis on Climate Change. It is written to everyone, and connects all things to the change called Climate Change: "pollution, waste and the throwaway culture." I recommend the book to everyone that is interested in climate change. Read this book, read a part of this book. You well be glad you did.
1
Whatever happened to confidence in scientists? A recent report said that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that human-caused global warming is happening. That suggests some pretty damn good data. Out here in Southern Oregon we've been spared terrible flooding to date, but because of warming seas and land, we are burning up. Forests are dying due to lack of moisture and beetle infestations, and the wildfires burn with higher intensity. Right now as I write, smoke is obscuring the Rogue Valley. The air quality is so poor, the Oregon Shakespeare Festival has cancelled three shows in the outdoor theatre. Climate change is real. Opinions don't change that.
4
I dont see any of the libs writing here doing anything about it themselves. Driving a smaller car?? Living in a smaller house?? The facts show that cars purchased by the public have gotten heavier over the last ten years. I guess thats just the climaye deniers,huh?? Taking fewer trips?? Or will the government solve it all itself??
1
Scientists say they cannot link Harvy to "climate change", yet this scientifically illiterate journalist of course knows better. One cannot educate the disciples of the church of global warming - true believers in the climate apocalypse prophesies.
It is interesting that you mentioned the "Manhattan" project and scientific reticence. Before the atomic bomb was built, its power was computed according to Albert Einstein's formula of E=mc2 which Einstein had arrived at in 1905, 40 years before the atomic was exploded in Alamogordo, New Mexico.
We know what is going to happen because of global warming. The trajectory is already computed and unless we do something now, it is all over.
I'm surprised and I'm not surprised that the most effective means of curbing global warming would be birth control. Why bother preaching to the choir? And of course, with this current President, nothing will get done.
Adios!
We know what is going to happen because of global warming. The trajectory is already computed and unless we do something now, it is all over.
I'm surprised and I'm not surprised that the most effective means of curbing global warming would be birth control. Why bother preaching to the choir? And of course, with this current President, nothing will get done.
Adios!
2
All this talk about "American Values"
There is one American value- greed...
Sacrifice the environment, each other, everything for corporate profits. And the stupid deplorables are blind to this. They will never get out of their hole. I could weep for them if I wasn't so angry at them for letting their ignorance ruin my country.
There is one American value- greed...
Sacrifice the environment, each other, everything for corporate profits. And the stupid deplorables are blind to this. They will never get out of their hole. I could weep for them if I wasn't so angry at them for letting their ignorance ruin my country.
5
Let me make this real simple --- when ocean temps are 87 degrees, you will find heavy downpours of rain in any storms fueled by those kind of warm ocean waters.
And why are ocean temps at all time highs?
And why are ocean temps at all time highs?
2
Just ended the longest historical period without a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hurricane-drought-hits-a-new-... or longest drought of a major hurricane hitting the US https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/201706
2
David, I read Dr. Hansen's struggle with the editorial board overseeing his article. The most depressing, frightening thing is that, as a world renowned scientist in the very area he writes about- some editors ( who arguably posses limited knowledge of the subject) gave him such a hard time clearly aiming to divert him from publishing the article.
It's analogous to an editorial board telling a world famous brain surgeon his article about removal of brain tumors CANT include the wording deadly
Cancer.
The ignorance, stupidity, narrow mindedness and, not the least political directives dictated from " above" in this area are doomed to eventually harm ( most of us ). Because they're simply...d a n g e r o u s.
It's analogous to an editorial board telling a world famous brain surgeon his article about removal of brain tumors CANT include the wording deadly
Cancer.
The ignorance, stupidity, narrow mindedness and, not the least political directives dictated from " above" in this area are doomed to eventually harm ( most of us ). Because they're simply...d a n g e r o u s.
2
What "Confirmation" do we need? Reminds me of the line in the movie Tora Tora Tora where Capt. James Earle, (who had refused to accept the incursion of Pearl Harbor by Japanese submarines) is pointed to the bombing in progress outside the window, with the line "You want your confirmation, Captain?"
https://youtu.be/lHFoR6KqzAY
For Sen. Inhofe and the like a snow-free winter could be the confirmation. For some among us, dead miners rather than a dead canary in the coalmine would be the necessary confirmation of poisonous gas in the coal mine.
https://youtu.be/lHFoR6KqzAY
For Sen. Inhofe and the like a snow-free winter could be the confirmation. For some among us, dead miners rather than a dead canary in the coalmine would be the necessary confirmation of poisonous gas in the coal mine.
1
... as an aside, paving over the earth not only prevents water drainage, but acts as a heat absorber/radiator (hence higher temperatures in cities), and displaces soil and vegetation (and their interaction with the atmosphere in the form of moisture, O2, CO2) and habitats ... I think that the biggest problem with "deniers"/humans is that our belief center overrides our rational center in our brains (in many people), and so these people, rather than doing self-education and research with a great resource (the internet), and possibly avoidant of science, suspicious of media or scientists, and not taking responsibility for their own education, simply make a binary decision to "believe or not believe", this does a great injustice to them and mankind in general and is very dangerous, but makes them "feel" better ... see comments below re some who think that G-d will fix this for them (magical thinking) and other groups/industries that intentionally publish anti-climate change propaganda ... oh boy ...
2
Leonhardt writes, "And how can people come together to protect one another from future storms and floods? The answer starts with getting real about climate change..."
And then goes on to give more stats rather than offer up what "getting real" might actually accomplish. Absolute rubbish. I'm so tired of journalists telling us what everyone already knows, rather than offering any reporting on even a semblance of an idea for ways forward. You guys are years behind in your myopic us vs. them chatter. It gets us nowhere.
And then goes on to give more stats rather than offer up what "getting real" might actually accomplish. Absolute rubbish. I'm so tired of journalists telling us what everyone already knows, rather than offering any reporting on even a semblance of an idea for ways forward. You guys are years behind in your myopic us vs. them chatter. It gets us nowhere.
Mr. Leonhardt, please recognize that YOU ARE NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST, yet you used precious column inches in The Times to opine on a subject where you ARE NOT AN EXPERT.
Here in Ohio, we had a spate of "San Diego weather". High temperatures in the upper 70s (Fahrenheit) and the relative humidity below 50%. The culprit for this was a high pressure system parked over the US South. The clockwise rotation brought in cool dry air from the northwest (a gift from Canada).
When Harvey came ashore, the progress north was effectively blocked by another high pressure system parked over the Southwest. Instead of being carried from west to east (the normal direction of weather in the US), this calamitous storm parked itself over Southeast Texas and continued to spin moisture in a counter clockwise fashion until it just about completely saturated many tens of thousands of square miles in the region.
The high pressure system over the South finally moved further East. When it started to rain here in Ohio, I recognized what had happened. Had this happened two days earlier, then much of the water-logged Gulf Coast would have been spared perhaps two feet of rain.
I speak from a level of authority that is the result of 40 years of scientific activity. The elected presidencies of two professional scientific societies, Court Recognition in several areas of science and engineering, etc. When I speak, I either speak as an Expert or I say, "I don't know." Please learn this lesson.
Here in Ohio, we had a spate of "San Diego weather". High temperatures in the upper 70s (Fahrenheit) and the relative humidity below 50%. The culprit for this was a high pressure system parked over the US South. The clockwise rotation brought in cool dry air from the northwest (a gift from Canada).
When Harvey came ashore, the progress north was effectively blocked by another high pressure system parked over the Southwest. Instead of being carried from west to east (the normal direction of weather in the US), this calamitous storm parked itself over Southeast Texas and continued to spin moisture in a counter clockwise fashion until it just about completely saturated many tens of thousands of square miles in the region.
The high pressure system over the South finally moved further East. When it started to rain here in Ohio, I recognized what had happened. Had this happened two days earlier, then much of the water-logged Gulf Coast would have been spared perhaps two feet of rain.
I speak from a level of authority that is the result of 40 years of scientific activity. The elected presidencies of two professional scientific societies, Court Recognition in several areas of science and engineering, etc. When I speak, I either speak as an Expert or I say, "I don't know." Please learn this lesson.
6
Trump was like John Dillinger visiting a town whose major bank was held up to offer comfort and support.
2
Saying that the severity of Harvey is almost certainly due to global warming isn't like saying smoking causes cancer; it's more like saying Bill got lung cancer because he smoked. I'm certainly not a denier or skeptic when it comes to global warming, but I believe it is supported by a totality of events and long-term changes. Leonhart in his eagerness to raise concern about climate change sees the potential impact of Harvey in achieving this goal, even if it means abandoning the distinction between statistical correlation and causation. Notably, he cites no scientists that are willing to take this leap with respect to Harvey. The problem with focussing on individual events to convince people about climate change is that the deniers and obfuscators can always come up with a claimed counterexample, a hurricane that didn't bring feared flooding or an April snow storm.
1
Houston, an oil capital in a red state, lived by the sword, now dying by the sword. And they'll still be denying climate change when it's all over.
6
Thank you for an excellent essay, Mr. Leonhardt. Simply and beautifully written, accurate, powerful. I hope you will now turn your attention to what we can do about the problem. Of course we should have done something twenty or thirty years ago, but there is still time to avoid the worst impacts. But we need to move fast. Please check out carbon fee and dividend, a non-partisan solution that will work.
2
"Expect the best, but plan for the worst". Sound like a good idea? Those who don't believe in man's effect on Climate Change had better heed that warning. Was Hurricane Harvey more likely than not caused by climate change? We'll never know, but the "plan for the worst" requires that we take that leap, fund the plans that are required by that theory, and demand that our elected officials act to prepare us and our Country for the worst.
1
Does David's theory on weather ALSO call for the 12 years that have passed without a Cat 4 storm hitting America? Because otherwise, he is just repeating the lies that he has been fed.
Don't you know we were all supposed to have died by 1980? The same people told us that.
This isn't science - its an exercise in propaganda. At least David never called himself a journalist; no one ever can again.
Don't you know we were all supposed to have died by 1980? The same people told us that.
This isn't science - its an exercise in propaganda. At least David never called himself a journalist; no one ever can again.
3
Thank you for writing this. My mom is a Texan who recently sold her home outside Corpus and moved up to Waco. I've covered environmental science for years, and yet oftentimes in Texas, been aware of the resistence to the double-c word. The kindest thing Trump could do in Corpus would be to reverse his position on the Paris Agreement.
1
Shameless, but predictable and probably entertaining that climate-mania should assign climate change as the cause of the heavy rain storm that hit Houston.
Climate-mania comes from a coalition of (1) liberal politicians who find it a useful campaign issue, especially if the public can be frightened by threat of danger to them right now instead of in 100 years, (2) scientists who receive increased attention and respect from the public, as well as public and private funding for research, and (3) the media, whose one-sided coverage of this issue contributes to their political lean to the left and who love a big controversial headline-producing story.
The one-sided press coverage has differed only in the amount to which climate change increased the size of the storm. It takes a brave scientist to risk position and research funds by taking on climate-mania. And this scientist would have trouble finding a platform anyway.
You may be aware that this country endured one of its worst droughts from 1998-2014. Is it not inconsistent that climate change can the cause of a heavy downpour in Houston but would nevertheless permit a long drought in the same area? Of course not. Ask how climate change can be responsible for drought and deluge and you'll get an answer you can't understand that can be neither proven nor disproven.
If climate-mania had been in force when the great Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s struck, you can be sure that climate change would have been blamed for that.
Climate-mania comes from a coalition of (1) liberal politicians who find it a useful campaign issue, especially if the public can be frightened by threat of danger to them right now instead of in 100 years, (2) scientists who receive increased attention and respect from the public, as well as public and private funding for research, and (3) the media, whose one-sided coverage of this issue contributes to their political lean to the left and who love a big controversial headline-producing story.
The one-sided press coverage has differed only in the amount to which climate change increased the size of the storm. It takes a brave scientist to risk position and research funds by taking on climate-mania. And this scientist would have trouble finding a platform anyway.
You may be aware that this country endured one of its worst droughts from 1998-2014. Is it not inconsistent that climate change can the cause of a heavy downpour in Houston but would nevertheless permit a long drought in the same area? Of course not. Ask how climate change can be responsible for drought and deluge and you'll get an answer you can't understand that can be neither proven nor disproven.
If climate-mania had been in force when the great Dust Bowl drought of the 1930s struck, you can be sure that climate change would have been blamed for that.
2
What we need is a national price on carbon. No matter if you think climate change is human caused or if climate change is happening, the science is clear that greenhouse gases make the earth warmer, leader to warmer oceans that can influence the production of mega storms like Hurricane Harvey. To decrease greenhouse gas emissions, economists and scientists agree that putting a price on carbon is one of our most effective options. Please write to your congressmen and congresswomen and ask them to support a price on carbon. Call them. Learn about different carbon pricing proposals out there, including the carbon fee and dividend proposal form Citizens' Climate Lobby, which is supported by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives alike. Storms like this do not know party lines or care about how you politically identify yourself. We are all human, and the humane thing to do is to do what we can help prevent these massively destructive extreme weather events from happening. Please, let's put a price on carbon.
3
Gee, no mention of global warming as the cause for Harvey dumping so much rain.
https://www.livescience.com/60254-whats-causing-tropical-storm-harvey-un...
Live Science August 28, 2017
So what is causing this degree of never-before-seen rainfall?
The answer has to do with the length of time that Harvey has been nearly stationary over southeastern Texas.
"Tropical cyclones, either tropical storms or hurricanes, tend to carry a lot of moisture with them and are often associated with pretty intense rain," Matthew Kelsch, a hydrometerologist at the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told Live Science. "But what makes this situation even more impressive is that the tropical storm itself — what used to be Hurricane Harvey — has pretty much stalled. For several days, it's pretty much meandering around the same place, so the same location keeps getting the intense rain."
https://www.livescience.com/60254-whats-causing-tropical-storm-harvey-un...
Live Science August 28, 2017
So what is causing this degree of never-before-seen rainfall?
The answer has to do with the length of time that Harvey has been nearly stationary over southeastern Texas.
"Tropical cyclones, either tropical storms or hurricanes, tend to carry a lot of moisture with them and are often associated with pretty intense rain," Matthew Kelsch, a hydrometerologist at the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, told Live Science. "But what makes this situation even more impressive is that the tropical storm itself — what used to be Hurricane Harvey — has pretty much stalled. For several days, it's pretty much meandering around the same place, so the same location keeps getting the intense rain."
1
The Texas tragedy is certainly compounded by the unwillingness of their political elite to accept climate change. As you note, Houston has some of the worst zoning laws of any major city. Allowing flood plains to become housing developments, mixing residential housing with toxic chemical plants and oil refineries, and not updating and upgrading their flood control system have all added to the disaster that is unfolding there. Once the rescue phase ends, it will be time for Houston to confront the future and stop ignoring it. Houston can and should be the model of how a major American coastal city rebuilds to protect agsinst climate change and epic storms like Harvey.
1
Is it warming some? Probably.
It's also getting warmer on Venus. Did we cause that, too?
The lack of critical thinking that has destroyed the Democratic Party shows through with the reflexive assumption by thousands of progressives that of course we had to have dome SOMETHING to make this happen.
When early man was throwing people into volcanoes to assuage the gods, they were using the exact same logic the country sees from its elite fools. ''Of course it Has to be our fault, right?''
This phenomenon already has a name, liberal white guilt. You can have someone read about it to you while you cry for the ozone.
It's also getting warmer on Venus. Did we cause that, too?
The lack of critical thinking that has destroyed the Democratic Party shows through with the reflexive assumption by thousands of progressives that of course we had to have dome SOMETHING to make this happen.
When early man was throwing people into volcanoes to assuage the gods, they were using the exact same logic the country sees from its elite fools. ''Of course it Has to be our fault, right?''
This phenomenon already has a name, liberal white guilt. You can have someone read about it to you while you cry for the ozone.
3
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration and their collaborators in the GOP have been denying science for so long that we have worse storms and climate extremes. Anne Gorsuch's appointment to the EPA was meant to destroy it, just as her son's appointment to the Supreme Court was meant to cement one-party rule in the form of so-called "conservatism" which is anything but.
Secretary Pruitt should drink the polluted water of the Houston floods; he's earned it.
Secretary Pruitt should drink the polluted water of the Houston floods; he's earned it.
7
I agree with your arguments about the role of human induced climate change in increasing the frequency and intensity of these disasters -- but there's another human contribution: namely, the lack of a coordinated urban planning policy to regulate developers who reduce land area and destroy natural buffers (think wetlands) that can absorb heavy rainfall events such as this one.
3
Why do people insist on believing what Exxon says publicly but in disregarding what its own scientists say behind closed doors? Why do people deny, deny and deny even when a flood wall of evidence comes into their homes and threatens their lives? Maybe their refusal to consider human beings are warming the planet is harmful to their identities as being against the outside group. And that may explain our nation's decline and threat to the whole world's safety and stability.
3
I would say it has more to do with chopping down all the trees to make way for subdivisions in Houston and beyond. I lived on a couple of acres in Cypress, TX during a boom in building and watched trees mowed down to build these dreadful mini-mansions with tiny spaces between houses and no vegetation other than mini-lawns. After the first year, floods became the norm on Telge Rd.
4
"Out of an abundance of academic caution — a caution that is in many ways admirable — scientists (and journalists) have obscured climate change’s true effects.
We don’t display the same fussiness in other important areas. No individual case of lung cancer can be definitively linked to smoking, as Heidi Cullen, the chief scientist at Climate Central, notes. Few vehicle accidents can be definitely linked to alcohol, and few saved lives can be definitively linked to seatbelts.
But this doesn't explain who is responsible for the "caution" especially that of the media. And it doesn't ID the culprits--the tobacco and auto industries who pushed back on smoking and seat belts. Today, it's corporate interest in general who fear lower profits who are pushing back on climate change and paying for that "caution."
We don’t display the same fussiness in other important areas. No individual case of lung cancer can be definitively linked to smoking, as Heidi Cullen, the chief scientist at Climate Central, notes. Few vehicle accidents can be definitely linked to alcohol, and few saved lives can be definitively linked to seatbelts.
But this doesn't explain who is responsible for the "caution" especially that of the media. And it doesn't ID the culprits--the tobacco and auto industries who pushed back on smoking and seat belts. Today, it's corporate interest in general who fear lower profits who are pushing back on climate change and paying for that "caution."
2
Proof, proof; that is the basis of scientific inquiry. Maybe proof for climate change effects are easier to establish in poorer countries with infrastructure to just get by, based on decades of experience. Such infrastructure is easily wrecked by current scenarios.
The severity of Harvey is due to climate change. There, I said it.
6
"The severity of Harvey, in other words, is almost certainly related to climate change", although this statement is softened in the next paragraph of the article.
Well, journalists can always blame natural disasters on anything, from the ghosts to the uncertain scientific evidence. If climate change is the immediate cause of the hurricanes like Harvey, it is rooted in the global population growth and the use of fossil fuels as energy sources at a rate that is faster than the population growth. Dig it ...
Well, journalists can always blame natural disasters on anything, from the ghosts to the uncertain scientific evidence. If climate change is the immediate cause of the hurricanes like Harvey, it is rooted in the global population growth and the use of fossil fuels as energy sources at a rate that is faster than the population growth. Dig it ...
I am a civil engineer in Houston working in the exact kind of land development that is often blamed for flooding events like these. Reading this article (quote - "pavement, unlike soil, fails to absorb water"), one gets the impression that land developers in the suburbs of Houston are just taking these big areas of pasture, covering them with pavement and houses, and then on to the next one. This simply just isn't true. When the impervious area of a piece of land is increased via development (e.g. open field to pavement), developers are required to build detention ponds to store the excess runoff that results from the increase in imperviousness. Not only that, but the outfall rate from the detention pond into the creek or bayou or whatever happens to be nearby is required to be the same or less than the pre-development outfall rate. To make it simple: scientifically, development should actually improve the drainage of an area. The project is designed so that less cubic feet per second of water is going into the bayou than there was before development.
1
My impression is that Fort Bend County is somewhat more demanding than its neighbors. Might they fare a bit better?
When are people going to realize the insanity of building homes, cities and infrastructure too near coastal areas, barrier islands and low-lying areas? Thirty percent of Harris County, by the way, is below sea level. And now, since the government doesn't agree with the overwhelming earth science agreement that Global Climate Change is man-made.
As we are finding-out: Nature giveth, and nature taketh away!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
As we are finding-out: Nature giveth, and nature taketh away!
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
4
We need to invest in infrastructure anyways. Now is the time to put together a group of scientists that can help us do so in a smart and efficient manner. We would put Americans back to work strengthening their own communities. Common sense not politics is what we need right now.
5
If normal water temperatures are 70 and climate change has raised them to 73, then evaporation rate will have increased by 2%. If rainfall is 50 inches at 70 degrees, it's about 51 inches at 73. The warming of Houston's water is a non-factor in flooding. Sometimes folks exaggerate the effect of climate change. This is one of those times.
2
Except that it's not "some folks" who have proven the link between water temperature and rainfall during hurricanes, but climate scientists. And for decades already.
Maybe you should go read their papers, study their math, and then come back to us, if you believe that it's possible for a non expert to reject their results ... ?
By the way: rainfall has never reached 50 inches before, in Texas. So I'd suggest you'd simply start with the study of the history of hurricanes, for instance, IF you're interested in hurricanes, of course?
Maybe you should go read their papers, study their math, and then come back to us, if you believe that it's possible for a non expert to reject their results ... ?
By the way: rainfall has never reached 50 inches before, in Texas. So I'd suggest you'd simply start with the study of the history of hurricanes, for instance, IF you're interested in hurricanes, of course?
3
Michjas is wrong to think the 2% increase in atmospheric water content for a 3 degree air temperature change means 2% more rain. Storms are driven by the energy from lighter warm moist air being driven upward by the weight of gravity on the cooler-dryer air around it, creating an updraft that pulls more air in, which in turn grabs moisture from the ocean warmth. As long as there is warm water below to drive water into the flowing air the storm will grow. This is how hurricanes create 150mph winds out of still air over warm water and rise to tens of thousands of feet. This is how a hurricane can explode into fury in a day or fall apart into a ordinary squall depending on a small change in water temperature. The air flow is like a chimney - once the flow gets going the rising air pulls more and more in. The amount of rain is more dependent on the total amount of air moved skyward than on the amount of water each unit of air can hold. The extra water content in a warmer atmosphere means everywhere a bigger weight difference between dry and wet air and more oomph to the storms and weather that result.
4
And you know this because...? Qualifications please.
I have taught Environmental Sustainability at the University level for many years, and I have practiced resource efficiency, when the budget allows, in my design-build business since the late 70’s. It is tempting in this situation to say “I told you so” about climate change, point fingers at the fossil fuels industry, or get into debates about correlation and causation. But the fact is we don’t know if there were storms like Harvey hundreds of years ago in Houston because we don’t have any records. What we do know, although we don’t want to admit it, is that we are the most wasteful nation on Earth. So unfortunately the real question is when are WE here in America going to face up to OUR overconsumption and get serious about waste reduction? When are WE going to face up to fact that WE are building infrastructure which absorbs heat all day long, sheds water and wastes energy in the name of comfort and convenience?
10
Whether or no global climate change is responsible for Harvey, the land that Huston is built on was not a good place to build. It was plains and swamps that had weathered such storms or the millenniums. I absorbed the deluges, its bayous drained the land.
But the developers and land speculators are the enemies of the environmentalists, or it is the other way around. Save those wetlands, save those swamps, save those fields and plains, oh not, they are worth more with as many people as we can accommodate living on them. Pave them over and watch the water run into the storm drains. Oh the drains or not big enough, well too bad, the people do not want any more taxes,besides we have gotten by for the last 200 years.
When environmentalists say old off, they are accused of valuing wildlife more than people. So what if a few critters are wiped out, we have our homes and concrete. Now the mice and squirrels can laugh at us.
But the developers and land speculators are the enemies of the environmentalists, or it is the other way around. Save those wetlands, save those swamps, save those fields and plains, oh not, they are worth more with as many people as we can accommodate living on them. Pave them over and watch the water run into the storm drains. Oh the drains or not big enough, well too bad, the people do not want any more taxes,besides we have gotten by for the last 200 years.
When environmentalists say old off, they are accused of valuing wildlife more than people. So what if a few critters are wiped out, we have our homes and concrete. Now the mice and squirrels can laugh at us.
1
To much rain ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,human made global warming
Not enough rain,,,,,,,,,,,,,,human made global warming
Excessive temperatures, human made global warming
Snowless winter,,,,,,,,,,,,,,human made global warming
Etc,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,human made global warming
I'm confused
Not enough rain,,,,,,,,,,,,,,human made global warming
Excessive temperatures, human made global warming
Snowless winter,,,,,,,,,,,,,,human made global warming
Etc,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,human made global warming
I'm confused
3
It's called "extreme weather". Places that are vulnerable to drought (= where high temperatures provoke drought) see a higher risk of droughts and more severe droughts when global temperatures increase, whereas places vulnerable to tropical cyclones (= hurricanes) see more severe hurricanes when temperatures increase.
Higher global temperatures make local weather events, determined by local conditions, become worse.
That doesn't mean that no matter what (your "Etc.") is linked to global warming though. Only events that are sensitive to higher or lower global temperatures.
If you'd like to understand, you'll find more info on for instance skepticalscience.com.
Higher global temperatures make local weather events, determined by local conditions, become worse.
That doesn't mean that no matter what (your "Etc.") is linked to global warming though. Only events that are sensitive to higher or lower global temperatures.
If you'd like to understand, you'll find more info on for instance skepticalscience.com.
3
I believe that the time has arrived to accept that the minds of the powers that be will not be changed. That what must happen is to begin to plan for a world that is hotter,with more droughts, and with more rain and floods
Also, that Texas should get some pre emptive zoning laws.
Finally Yes disease. I cannot imagine that mosquito populations that will arise. Along with a number of very serious and long term consequential diseases.
Also, that Texas should get some pre emptive zoning laws.
Finally Yes disease. I cannot imagine that mosquito populations that will arise. Along with a number of very serious and long term consequential diseases.
1
What I have noticed is that the accuracy of the storm track predictions has improved and that may have already saved lives. Congratulations to the storm scientists for their progress in dealing with a very complex problem.
I also have noted that between 1960 and 2010 there have been between 12 and 18 hurricanes per decade that have made landfalls along along the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Even though we have several hundred years of data that is a very small data set that involves a large number of variables. It is not reasonable to expect a firm conclusion about the complex role of climate change based on such a small data set.
I also have noted that between 1960 and 2010 there have been between 12 and 18 hurricanes per decade that have made landfalls along along the Gulf Coast and East Coast. Even though we have several hundred years of data that is a very small data set that involves a large number of variables. It is not reasonable to expect a firm conclusion about the complex role of climate change based on such a small data set.
3
Thank you. I've been thinking that we need a Manhattan Project for alternative energy. With focused attention, it took the U.S. about 6 months to convert factories to wartime manufacturing. There was a clear enemy. Climate change/global warming is getting clear and clearer. And there are actions that could be taken right now to slow down the warming. What will move our leaders to act? How many cities have to be destroyed? How many lives lost? Or species becoming extinct?
6
This is very sad - and here's why --
Back in the sixties - when I was a teenager - the cost of a pack of cigarettes was about 35¢ - and I can remember when a carton cost less than $10.00 -- (And no -- I've never been a smoker myself) --
Even back then, many people were well aware of the dangers of smoking tobacco, and the serious health risks therein - even in the face of "Fake News" provided by the big companies in the form of so-called "scientific studies" which showed smoking to be safe --
Now - here we are - fifty years later -- with the price of a single pack of cigarettes costing about thirteen dollars - along with an overwhelming collection of medical data proving - irrefutably - that smoking is a direct cause of disease and death --
And yet -- when I travel to downtown Manhattan, I often see young, hip, artsy college students gliding hanging out in front of the library - or gliding down the street with a ex-large coffee -- dragging on a cigarette -- in spite of all we now know about the direct harm caused by smoking --
So -
If people are still willing to live in denial in the face of an action with consequences they can directly see -- why would we be surprised when they doubt the idea of direct negative effects being caused by actions from which they are two or three (or more) times removed -- ?
Back in the sixties - when I was a teenager - the cost of a pack of cigarettes was about 35¢ - and I can remember when a carton cost less than $10.00 -- (And no -- I've never been a smoker myself) --
Even back then, many people were well aware of the dangers of smoking tobacco, and the serious health risks therein - even in the face of "Fake News" provided by the big companies in the form of so-called "scientific studies" which showed smoking to be safe --
Now - here we are - fifty years later -- with the price of a single pack of cigarettes costing about thirteen dollars - along with an overwhelming collection of medical data proving - irrefutably - that smoking is a direct cause of disease and death --
And yet -- when I travel to downtown Manhattan, I often see young, hip, artsy college students gliding hanging out in front of the library - or gliding down the street with a ex-large coffee -- dragging on a cigarette -- in spite of all we now know about the direct harm caused by smoking --
So -
If people are still willing to live in denial in the face of an action with consequences they can directly see -- why would we be surprised when they doubt the idea of direct negative effects being caused by actions from which they are two or three (or more) times removed -- ?
8
If its an emergency, shouldnt we have to cut back and drive a smaller car,live in a smaller house, maybe walk to the supermarket?? You get the point.
2
Everything is related to climate change. Even if there was no toilet papers in toilets, then it should be somewhat related to global warming. This is the kind of talk that made people suspicious of global warming alarmists. They make things up and try to link everything like some conspiracy theorist. I wish people stick to the facts, instead of making unnecessary connections. No wonder people don't believe global warming is real!
3
As for EVERY information, intelligent people ought to sift through various sources and chose the most reliable. If your gardener talks about renal transplantation and your surgeon tells you a different thing, whom would you believe? Concerning climate change listen to scientists that study it and believe published papers in good peer reviewed journals. These publications are resumed and simplified for the public but with a reference to the authors and reviews. The future of our sons and grandsons is in jeopardy, and intelligent people ought to surrender to the overwhelming evidence of climate change and take action and ALSO vote accordingly
4
So what you're saying is that when scientists prove something that seems to contradict what common sense tells us to believe, then they should shut up because if not we won't believe them anymore ... ?
You seem to ignore that since science exists, ALL major discoveries have proven common sense to be wrong ... ?
You seem to ignore that since science exists, ALL major discoveries have proven common sense to be wrong ... ?
Dear NyTimes:
Yes, there are people still convinced that what we do to our planet (and particularly how we generate energy) is irrelevant; and it is useful to open a debate.
But there is something even more important: understand why we have built the reactors used in the last 50 years,
Times journalist should read the story of Alvin Weinberg; he designed the first nuclear reactors in a hurry, to beat Stalin's Soviet Union.
But his objective was to build a different of nuclear reactor, the "Molten Salt Reactor", working at Atmospheric Pressure (which eliminates all the problems associated with nuclear safety). But he was fired by the Nixon administration with the famously ironic sentence "Alvin, if you are so worried about the safety of the reactors you developed, it's time for you to change your job". The inventor of the reactors fired because he wanted total safety!
In the last 10 years, group of scientists have been trying to implement Weinberg's design, with virtually no support and financing. And the NyTimes has been silent.
You fight battles; but you stay away from the truly difficult ones.
The reason that I stopped subscribing to the NyTimes, that I once thought it was the best newspaper on Earth.
Yes, there are people still convinced that what we do to our planet (and particularly how we generate energy) is irrelevant; and it is useful to open a debate.
But there is something even more important: understand why we have built the reactors used in the last 50 years,
Times journalist should read the story of Alvin Weinberg; he designed the first nuclear reactors in a hurry, to beat Stalin's Soviet Union.
But his objective was to build a different of nuclear reactor, the "Molten Salt Reactor", working at Atmospheric Pressure (which eliminates all the problems associated with nuclear safety). But he was fired by the Nixon administration with the famously ironic sentence "Alvin, if you are so worried about the safety of the reactors you developed, it's time for you to change your job". The inventor of the reactors fired because he wanted total safety!
In the last 10 years, group of scientists have been trying to implement Weinberg's design, with virtually no support and financing. And the NyTimes has been silent.
You fight battles; but you stay away from the truly difficult ones.
The reason that I stopped subscribing to the NyTimes, that I once thought it was the best newspaper on Earth.
5
Trump traveling to Texas isn't a substantive palliative for what frighteningly may be the new norm. I'd rather see Trump taking important steps to dealing with climate change in order to hopefully avoid increasing instances of catastrophic events such as this hurricane and the accompanying flooding than showing up and saying what a good job he and his administration are doing. Don't just make it a PR opportunity. Do something to remedy the situation even if the problem won't likely be fixed in its entirety tomorrow. It's too important to be a denier of climate change now just for Trump to crow he's the anti-Obama.
3
I'm a global warming proponent, but the comparison to smoking and lung cancer, attributed to Heidi Cullen, fails logic. The basis for that comparison would seem to be the statement: extreme weather events are to global warming as lung cancer is to smoking. The problem is that extreme weather events (in this case, a hurricane) are common, whereas lung cancer is rare--a person has only about a 7% chance of getting it in a lifetime. People who smoke are 15 to 30 times more likely to get lung cancer. But it's not the case that a world warmed by greenhouse gases is 15 to 30 times more likely to get a hurricane. If, in our world, hurricanes had an incidence comparable to lung cancer (out of every 100 years, a hurricane would form somewhere in the world in 7 of those years), then the statement would make more sense. Subjecting bad logic to scrutiny, no matter what side of the political spectrum it comes from, is not scientific reticence, it's scientific rationality.
2
The numbers are different, but Heidi Cullen's logic is OK. Her point is not that "extreme weather events are to global warming as lung cancer is to smoking," but that although smoking greatly increases the incidence of lung cancer, no individual case of lung cancer can be proved to have been caused by smoking.
3
The strategy of Big tobacco was not to deny nicotine caused lung cancer but to claim that there was uncertainty among scientists. Big oil used the same strategy to claim there was uncertainty among scientists regarding global warming. That is the connection between smoking and greenhouse gases, the fraudulent tactics.
5
Now who is denying science? The Times reviewed scientific opinion regarding the role of global warming in hurricane Harvey and concluded that opinion was decidedly undecided. Mr. Leonhardt, you don't help the cause of science - or climate change policy - by bending it to your political purposes.
8
The statement "no individual storm can be blamed on climate change" is the prime example of using wrong-headed thinking that deludes rather than illuminates. Systems thinkers, who must consider catastrophic conditions likely to be encountered in ouster space find no use in this form of large number actuarial thinking preferring the medium-numbered modeled abstractions used to characterize and reason about extreme events.
Actuarial "science" has proven irrelevant to constructively dealing with catastrophes such as Katrina, Sandy and now, Harvey. The insurance industry, which is rooted in acturalial thinking, has abjectly failed to either deal with actual crisies let alone be of any use in preparing for the next extreme event. At its worst, actuarial thinking jprovides an excuse for refusing to address the realities, complexities and interdependencies of extreme wether events.
As a thought leader, the New York Times should bring better patterns of thinking, such as "The Black Swan" paradigm, into the public discourses. Climate, extreme or otherwise, is a complex and challanging system that demands the best we can muster in systems thinking rather than the excuses and delusions offered by irrelevant dllmodes of actuarial thinking.
Actuarial "science" has proven irrelevant to constructively dealing with catastrophes such as Katrina, Sandy and now, Harvey. The insurance industry, which is rooted in acturalial thinking, has abjectly failed to either deal with actual crisies let alone be of any use in preparing for the next extreme event. At its worst, actuarial thinking jprovides an excuse for refusing to address the realities, complexities and interdependencies of extreme wether events.
As a thought leader, the New York Times should bring better patterns of thinking, such as "The Black Swan" paradigm, into the public discourses. Climate, extreme or otherwise, is a complex and challanging system that demands the best we can muster in systems thinking rather than the excuses and delusions offered by irrelevant dllmodes of actuarial thinking.
1
Excellent opinion. I am concerned regarding the amount of comment denying the obvious changing weather & climate changing patterns
I am appalled at the complete lack of planning & zoning regulations that allow a community to live in harmony & reality considering the geography, topography, drainage of the area. I believe Planning & Zoning are distinct function of government. These function protect people & business. Note #45 has recently rolled back many zoning & planning regulations.
Too bad for the citizens.
I am appalled at the complete lack of planning & zoning regulations that allow a community to live in harmony & reality considering the geography, topography, drainage of the area. I believe Planning & Zoning are distinct function of government. These function protect people & business. Note #45 has recently rolled back many zoning & planning regulations.
Too bad for the citizens.
4
The climat is changing. Absolutely, but then, it has always been changing. Un precedented rainful, haven't seen anything like it. In my memory, Katrina was yesterday. Humans must be causing it. Well sure, wouldn't be anything to damage if it weren't for humans. Were would we all be without a bandwagon to hop on, a cause to get behind and while we're at it, make us all rich. Oh, and ser ve as a distraction.
3
Atmospheric scientists have studied all possible causes for climate change because our warming trend is undeniable. The increase in greenhouse gases due to burning fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Age is the only explanation that fits the facts.
4
Nobody seems to understand this simple truth: when we will have the absolute certainty that climate change is responsible for the worsening of these events, it will be simply too late to remedy the disaster.
The problem is: do we have to wait to be absolute sure that burning fossils is wrong and we must find a progressive way to change all this ?
Because that kind of certainty is equivalent to a funeral hymn for mankind.
Do we have to wait that harvey's like phenomena become monthly ?
I mean, for USA ? because they already are. Just go to see what's happening in Far East, in Europe, everywhere.
Too much energy in the atmosphere must discharge in some way.
My father was right: only we will face huge cadres of cadavers along the streets we will realize that something must be done.
I'm afraid that it will be too late.
The problem is: do we have to wait to be absolute sure that burning fossils is wrong and we must find a progressive way to change all this ?
Because that kind of certainty is equivalent to a funeral hymn for mankind.
Do we have to wait that harvey's like phenomena become monthly ?
I mean, for USA ? because they already are. Just go to see what's happening in Far East, in Europe, everywhere.
Too much energy in the atmosphere must discharge in some way.
My father was right: only we will face huge cadres of cadavers along the streets we will realize that something must be done.
I'm afraid that it will be too late.
6
The NYT - "Unfortunately, stories of potential misery have not been enough to stir this country to action. They haven’t led to a Manhattan Project for alternative energy or a national effort to reduce carbon emissions."
Do we need the government to fund a "Manhattan Project" in order to invent clean energy? Is there anyone reading this article that doesn't realize the potential for making billions of dollars by inventing or investing in a form of sustainable green energy? Where are the go green entrepreneurs willing to take a chance on saving the earth and becoming a billionaire in the bargain?
In the meantime what do we do that won't destroy individual economies or the economy of the United States? Should we stop all motor transportation except for essential use? Close down the power plants that use petroleum based products? It's so nice to scream about those uneducated, stupid non-believers but what are the believers doing, waiting for the government to come to their rescue?
Do we need the government to fund a "Manhattan Project" in order to invent clean energy? Is there anyone reading this article that doesn't realize the potential for making billions of dollars by inventing or investing in a form of sustainable green energy? Where are the go green entrepreneurs willing to take a chance on saving the earth and becoming a billionaire in the bargain?
In the meantime what do we do that won't destroy individual economies or the economy of the United States? Should we stop all motor transportation except for essential use? Close down the power plants that use petroleum based products? It's so nice to scream about those uneducated, stupid non-believers but what are the believers doing, waiting for the government to come to their rescue?
2
Elon Musk. In addition to Tesla Motors, he also has a home solar energy wall system & will be coming out very soon with attractive roof solar panels that look like ordinary roofing tile.
3
I have listened to the unscientific arguments of climate change deniers, and find I just have to shake my head in vain. I can't go to school for them. I can't read for them, or even change their minds. I learned long ago that it's useless to try to change others. They can only change themselves. In the meantime, we will go from crisis to crisis. What will happen when it's too late? What then?
3
This article is not about denying climate change, it is about ignoring current science on the relationship between hurricanes and climate change in order to support a belief system. That makes those who do so no better than deniers.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario).
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario).
Just as the Tobacco Institute published mountains of lies and obfuscations relating to the causation of cancer by the use of tobacco, so too has the fossil fuel industry created piles of lies regarding climate change.
3
Governor Abbott of Texas is a climate-change denier. I don't believe he's a fool and so I can only conclude that he values fossil fuel production and usage more than dealing with global warming. Trump, who is a fool, denies climate change as well and he took the extraordinary step of withdrawing from the Paris Accord. He also put Scott Pruitt, an enemy of the planet, in charge of the EPA with the mission of destroying the agency.
On the day that the Surgeon General announced many years ago that smoking can cause lung cancer, I smoked my last cigarette. I didn't wait around for conclusive, iron clad, 100% proof because to wait would have been to invite disaster. Statisticians can argue about the difference between correlation and causation, but to those who deny climate change and global warming due to fossil fuel consumption I say that the overwhelming majority of scientists who study this subject have concluded that it does. To ask us to wait until there is "absolute proof" is disingenuous, reckless and even impossible. Furthermore, if we wait much longer, there will be nothing to discuss. Game over.
On the day that the Surgeon General announced many years ago that smoking can cause lung cancer, I smoked my last cigarette. I didn't wait around for conclusive, iron clad, 100% proof because to wait would have been to invite disaster. Statisticians can argue about the difference between correlation and causation, but to those who deny climate change and global warming due to fossil fuel consumption I say that the overwhelming majority of scientists who study this subject have concluded that it does. To ask us to wait until there is "absolute proof" is disingenuous, reckless and even impossible. Furthermore, if we wait much longer, there will be nothing to discuss. Game over.
9
We are as primitive a mammal, driven by our DNA to control territory, to reproduce, to seek comfort, etc.—as apes, whales, wild dogs and other animal life. Except for our consummate tool-building skills, a power far beyond our control. The uncontrollable features of our species such as over-population, over-consumption, greed, environmental destruction, hate, etc. are amplified exponentially by the devices we construct to pursue them. In other words, we're too smart for our own good, and the extermination of all life on Earth at our hands is pretty much inevitable. Homo sapiens is a Ponzi scheme.
3
I understand and agree with the points made. However, Houston sits approx. 50 feet above sea level on clay, not Florida sand. It does not have zoning. And, it has allowed developers, for years, to build in flood zones and to destroy prairies in the area. So-called "bayous" are nothing more than drainage ditches that cannot handle major storm runoff. Houston's shortsided development greed has set the city up for disaster. And the average citizen does not understand.
3
This article in the 2016 NYT discusses what scientists call a "hurricane drought." If climate change is to blame for Harvey, does climate change get credit for the huge decline in the number of dangerous storms that North America and the Caribbean have faced in the last decade?
3
Just report the facts, including the fact that climate change affects the weather. We have Harvey, the most extreme rainfall in history because of climate change and the consequences to Houston are due to this extreme rainfall and in part to lack of preparations or changes. By that I mean, since more rainfall will come prepare the bayous to habdle it. Consult the engineers and make the changes needed to protect the people and property of Houston and any other city with similar threats.
We do not need to spend precious time accommodating those proven wrong. We have work to do.
We do not need to spend precious time accommodating those proven wrong. We have work to do.
1
The relatively good news is that are not helpless. By sharply cutting our use of fossil fuels, we can reduce the severity of these terrible storms in the future.
5
So very many issues are exposed by events like Harvey, and I don't just mean climate change.
I never once questioned whether it was appropriate for the federal government to tax me for the sake of Texans or anyone else in this country. Of course it is! They are a part of these United States and the government has a DUTY to help solve their problems. But very often that is a one-way street. I notice that no one in Texas is currently petitioning to secede from the U.S. But once the present danger has passed and the recovery has run its course... how long will it be before such petty nonsense starts again?
I notice also that no one is presently keen on cutting disaster relief programs. Remember the "administrative state" Bannon vowed to destroy and the monstrous applause that idea generated? We are fortunate that destruction has not yet been fully successful. But once the skies clear up... how long will it be before someone proposes cutting another few hundred million dollars out of FEMA?
And yes... climate change. Similar to a mass shooting, we are told that now is not the time for that discussion, but can we pencil in a date or something? Remember the climate change report scientists fear might be suppressed by the Trump administration? At some point in the very near future, perhaps we should make a point of seriously considering what it says. Maybe we should also reconsider whether Pruitt, a man who openly wished to destroy the EPA, should be running it.
I never once questioned whether it was appropriate for the federal government to tax me for the sake of Texans or anyone else in this country. Of course it is! They are a part of these United States and the government has a DUTY to help solve their problems. But very often that is a one-way street. I notice that no one in Texas is currently petitioning to secede from the U.S. But once the present danger has passed and the recovery has run its course... how long will it be before such petty nonsense starts again?
I notice also that no one is presently keen on cutting disaster relief programs. Remember the "administrative state" Bannon vowed to destroy and the monstrous applause that idea generated? We are fortunate that destruction has not yet been fully successful. But once the skies clear up... how long will it be before someone proposes cutting another few hundred million dollars out of FEMA?
And yes... climate change. Similar to a mass shooting, we are told that now is not the time for that discussion, but can we pencil in a date or something? Remember the climate change report scientists fear might be suppressed by the Trump administration? At some point in the very near future, perhaps we should make a point of seriously considering what it says. Maybe we should also reconsider whether Pruitt, a man who openly wished to destroy the EPA, should be running it.
5
Houston has now reported 49.32 inches of rain, breaking the national record of 48 inches set in Medina, Texas, by Tropical Storm Amelia in 1978. That’s an increase of 1.33 inches.
2
As a former Air Force weather officer and still member of the American Meteorological Society for 55 years, meteotologists tend not to attribute individual storms to global warming. In my experience, the unusual aspect of Harvey was that was that it became very stationary, rather than moving on, and spent a lot of time over water, without the surface friction that tends to dissipate such storms.
Another aspect is that Texas tends to have lenient zoning regulations. Thanks to 22 years in the USAF, I have lived all over the US. I would not choose to live in tornado prone areas. Tornados seem to like the Bible Belt, another reason I chose to retire in Seattle. With Gospel quartets, who needs water boarding?
Another aspect is that Texas tends to have lenient zoning regulations. Thanks to 22 years in the USAF, I have lived all over the US. I would not choose to live in tornado prone areas. Tornados seem to like the Bible Belt, another reason I chose to retire in Seattle. With Gospel quartets, who needs water boarding?
2
Some of those who were quick to pin Sandy on God's wrath have been notably reticent on Harvey, and many other recent floods, tornadoes, and other assorted disasters in "God's country". Is it possible the He is sending a message?
4
James -- don't always agree with you but you are correct on this. Leonhardt is trying to make political points. An N of 1 is merely anecdotal. And if you want to claim that Harvey is proof of CC, then what about the preceding 12 years with no major hurricanes.
1
Just as statistical probability makes it difficult to attribute a particular storm to climate change. It is also statistically unlikely that two storms rated as 500 year storms (Ike in 2008 and now Harvey) would devastate the Galveston-Houston area within 10 years - unless there is another explanation than natural climate cycles.
2
This is what you get when you dig up dinosaur fossils and burn them. Even dogs know not to do that.
3
What’s happening in Texas is heartbreaking, and yet it will be a more frequent part of modern life unless we do something about it. That, ultimately, is the most compassionate message about Harvey.
"Do something about it"...what would you suggest? Kill all of the bovines in the world? How about funding everyone so that Elon Musk can sell more cars? (send me my check first, please)
Yes, The Sky is Falling...but the reality is that while you are writing me a check, we also need to assure cities and citizens are safe. We need to be prepared...and not wish and blame each other. This means understanding that these events are going to happen for the next 200+ years...and by the time we have changed the world, it will be time to change again.
No clear solutions except let's think together: if there was a Yellow Brick Road to Oz...we'd all be on it. There is not...so let's develop Plans and contingency plans. In the USA, President Trump has made it easier for local law enforcement to obtain high water vehicles for rescue. Yes, there will also be consequences for those who loot and break laws.
There is anarchy of the mind as well as anarchy of lawlessness! In short, let's learn to be civil and not so darned self assured and self centered. Ya, I can't wait for the BLAST from someone about all of this...proving my points. By the way, I do not need to be validated...
"Do something about it"...what would you suggest? Kill all of the bovines in the world? How about funding everyone so that Elon Musk can sell more cars? (send me my check first, please)
Yes, The Sky is Falling...but the reality is that while you are writing me a check, we also need to assure cities and citizens are safe. We need to be prepared...and not wish and blame each other. This means understanding that these events are going to happen for the next 200+ years...and by the time we have changed the world, it will be time to change again.
No clear solutions except let's think together: if there was a Yellow Brick Road to Oz...we'd all be on it. There is not...so let's develop Plans and contingency plans. In the USA, President Trump has made it easier for local law enforcement to obtain high water vehicles for rescue. Yes, there will also be consequences for those who loot and break laws.
There is anarchy of the mind as well as anarchy of lawlessness! In short, let's learn to be civil and not so darned self assured and self centered. Ya, I can't wait for the BLAST from someone about all of this...proving my points. By the way, I do not need to be validated...
1
Anarchy of the mind?
Do you ignore the fact that science has proven in a perfectly rational ("ratio" in Latin also means "order") that global warming is happening, man-made, caused by too high CO2 emissions, and extremely dangerous for millions of people today and billions in the near future?
And you also seem to ignore that the Paris accord for instance proposes the most effective and far-ranging, concrete and world-wide solutions yet?
So yes, we need "clear solutions" and those will only be invented if we all "think together".
The good news is that that's exactly what scientists all over the world have been doing for decades already, AND that thanks to Obama political leaders from everywhere except Syria and Nicaragua did the same and decided to finally start implementing those solutions.
All we have to do know to join the rest of the world is vote the GOP and Trump out.
Problem solved. No more "anarchy of the mind".
Do you ignore the fact that science has proven in a perfectly rational ("ratio" in Latin also means "order") that global warming is happening, man-made, caused by too high CO2 emissions, and extremely dangerous for millions of people today and billions in the near future?
And you also seem to ignore that the Paris accord for instance proposes the most effective and far-ranging, concrete and world-wide solutions yet?
So yes, we need "clear solutions" and those will only be invented if we all "think together".
The good news is that that's exactly what scientists all over the world have been doing for decades already, AND that thanks to Obama political leaders from everywhere except Syria and Nicaragua did the same and decided to finally start implementing those solutions.
All we have to do know to join the rest of the world is vote the GOP and Trump out.
Problem solved. No more "anarchy of the mind".
5
"Let's develop plans and contingency plans ... " The best plan to deal with global warming and mitigate its effects is to vote for Democrats. The GOP is the party of climate change denial and the party that is thrilled that all of Obama's prudent plans (such as building roads and bridges to withstand flooding) have been reversed.
4
Most rational comment I have seen on this article
There is a bubble of air around the Earth. It is called the Troposphere. We all live in the same bubble of air. Humans create thermal energy that cannot escape the bubble, and the bubble is warming up. (clue:heat from a campfire makes the air warmer in ways that it would not have gotten warmed had the fire not been made. Question: where does the heat go?) How in the world could humans *not* be a significant factor of increased atmospheric heat?
2
Speaking as a meteorologist, and neglecting minor contributors, we receive heat from the sun concentrated in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Since thermodynamic systems tend to seek equilibrium, we must, in the long run, exhaust the same amount of energy, by infrared radiation to,outer space. The amount of heat we radiate is proportional to our absolute temperature raised to thr 4th power. An increased concentration of greenhouse gases warns the earth and atmosphere so we must exhaust more energy. To do that, the earth radiates at a higher temperature. Hence, global warming. That is the the basics. But there are other complications due to ocean currents, and cloud cover. Clouds are a two edged sword. More clouds reflect more sunlight, a cooling effect, but clouds also act as blanket, a warming effect. The proof of the pudding is that glaciers are receding, sea levels are rising, seeds are germinating earlier, migratory birds are changing their schedules, etc.
4
Err, the amount of energy radiated from an atmosphere-less body goes as temperature to the fourth power but since the atmosphere is optically dense (smoke or fog-like) at thermal wavelengths because of CO2 and water, the rate of heat loss into space from the earth is diffusive, and changes approximately linearly with temperature. This means that the increase in temperature needed to make up for the extra trapped heat from CO2 is about 4 times larger than it would be with a fourth power law. The way to think about diffusive radiative heat flow is that all of the thermal light is absorbed, which warms the air, which in turn re-radiates that heat as light in all directions and this happens multiple times. Just as with visible light and fog, the light doesn't go away but gets scattered upward or downward multiple times. Since on each scattering only half goes up, the effect is that the light gets dimmer and dimmer as you move away from the source. This gives you the lapse rate of air temperature seen in the atmosphere which changes as the air density drops off.
Climate change may very well be a cause of severe storms like Harvey, but the severe effects of the storm could have been mitigated if the hundreds of square miles of recent paving had been permeable. It costs a few cents more but compare that to the billions of damage from Flooding. Permeable paving should be mandatory anywhere that it rains.
6
But that's government regulation. Surely the all-powerful free market can see Houston through its trouble?
3
Our free market is very good at making rich people more wealthy, and ignores all else, including pollution.
2
It is a disservice to the progress of efforts to deal with global warming to make weak, easily-refuted arguments such as this column does.
The deniers will say, correctly, that Harvey could merely be a once-per-thousand-years event.
If you want to argue heat waves and associated aridity, deniers will correctly mention the US. Dustbowl events of the 1930's as not fitting into any long-term trend.
If you really want to aid progress on dealing with global warming, stick to undeniable facts that do not rely on correlations or computer modeling:
-- carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane are greenhouse gasses
-- global temperatures are rising
-- old glaciers are melting
-- sea levels are rising
-- Miami has begun flooding on sunny, storm-free days
-- the surface of the Gulf of Mexico is warming
-- etc.
Scientifically, it is really, really hard to prove cause and effect.
I completely accept that global warming is largely caused by human activities.
But to avoid handing easy victories or obfuscation to deniers in this debate, it is best to stay away from the endless argumentation about "cause" of the facts above, which, as the deniers know only too well, can never be rigorously proven.
Instead, just work to promote mitigation of global warming, regardless of hypothetical cause -- let's get the atmospheric carbon dioxide level down!
The deniers will say, correctly, that Harvey could merely be a once-per-thousand-years event.
If you want to argue heat waves and associated aridity, deniers will correctly mention the US. Dustbowl events of the 1930's as not fitting into any long-term trend.
If you really want to aid progress on dealing with global warming, stick to undeniable facts that do not rely on correlations or computer modeling:
-- carbon dioxide, water vapor and methane are greenhouse gasses
-- global temperatures are rising
-- old glaciers are melting
-- sea levels are rising
-- Miami has begun flooding on sunny, storm-free days
-- the surface of the Gulf of Mexico is warming
-- etc.
Scientifically, it is really, really hard to prove cause and effect.
I completely accept that global warming is largely caused by human activities.
But to avoid handing easy victories or obfuscation to deniers in this debate, it is best to stay away from the endless argumentation about "cause" of the facts above, which, as the deniers know only too well, can never be rigorously proven.
Instead, just work to promote mitigation of global warming, regardless of hypothetical cause -- let's get the atmospheric carbon dioxide level down!
2
If you want to convince us that the arguments in this op-ed are easily refuted, why are you writing an entire comment without starting to refute them ... ?
What are you waiting for?
What are you waiting for?
This article assumes that deniers of climate change are sincere and innocent. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are liars and have invested $$$ interests in fossil fuel industries. What they are doing is holding honest, good people hostage by making it nearly impossible to reduce our emissions on the grand scale necessary to avoid catastrophe. I call that intentional homicide.
8
I definitely agree , however you are much too polite ... I would say premeditated murder.
1
Don't under estimate the part that religion plays in this. There are an amazing number of people quite sure that their god will not let anything bad befall them. As my daughter once observed when plodding through her AP physics homework some years ago 'it's much easier to believe in god than to study physics.' Personally I have more faith in physics, and some pretty basic physics is at work here. These severe weather events are exactly as predicted. Then there's the issue that's so toxic no one will touch it; sheer numbers. Earth's population numbers. Everyone wants a decent standard of living (and why not?) but sooner or later we have to face the fact that planet earth is a finite size, and not a limitless trash can for our pollution. There isn't a single problem facing the planet that wouldn't be easier to solve if there were fewer people. (Personally I lay the blame for this at the feet of religion too... How many religions have opposed contraception? Most of them at some time.) Nature has a way of correcting over population in animal species, and it's not pretty. It's almost certainly too late to stop significant climate change; what we have to decide now is how to deal with it. In an equable and realistic manner that looks after everyone? (The citizens of Houston appear to be setting a good example in taking care of each other.) Or our usual head in the sand approach?
5
So many people believe it is biblical, that only God is in control of the weather. And yet we will rebuild Houston, New Orleans, Miami, Jersey Shore, putting homes on stilts. Within a century these locals may be unlivable, certainly more dangerous. The US has never had to abandon a city that has outlived its' usefulness. Technology won't save us this time. We have met our master, and it is Nature.
3
Nature always has the last word, and it is rarely a kind one.
Mother Nature is the only Godess. She doesn't play favorites. I think more people are coming to understand that Bronze Age myths do not reflect reality.
1
"Good Planets Are Hard To Find"...A song written by Steve Forbert after seeing the phrase on bumper sticker.
Could God be sending a message to Texas?
2
But I thought you knew: It's all a Chinese hoax!
1
To Editor Leonhardt:
Thanks for inviting comments, in today's Opinion Page introduction, regarding Alternative Media bloggers such as Josh Marshall of TPM that you respect and
trust as sources.
May I suggest to you and regular readers of the NYT another Alternative Media blog that has the highest degree of journalistic ethics and integrity--
Tom Engelhardt's TomDispatch.com--that focuses on the Military Industrial Complex and the US' global militaristic foreign policy as it is expressed in over 150 of the world's nations large and small.
Thanks for inviting comments, in today's Opinion Page introduction, regarding Alternative Media bloggers such as Josh Marshall of TPM that you respect and
trust as sources.
May I suggest to you and regular readers of the NYT another Alternative Media blog that has the highest degree of journalistic ethics and integrity--
Tom Engelhardt's TomDispatch.com--that focuses on the Military Industrial Complex and the US' global militaristic foreign policy as it is expressed in over 150 of the world's nations large and small.
JFK was killed in Texas, allegedly by Lee Harvey Oswald (1963), and here we call a Killer Storm, also in Texas "Harvey." Poor choice.
Thank you David Leonhardt.
1
Now I understand that you liberals believe in climate change even more than morals and human decency, so I will not get into an argument about the actual subject of climate change. But, how on earth can all of you create an article about how humans are at fault for the catastrophic flooding in Texas. I live in Texas (in fact I actually live in the Houston area) and there are people very close to me who have had to leave their homes because the water levels were at their doors and in their houses. there are over 30,000 displaced people in Texas right now, and you are all sitting at home not anywhere close to the storm talking about how its our fault that any of this happened. You talk about how carbon emissions create all this global warming, but I don't see any Toyota prius rescuing people from flooding.
1
So ... first you say you refuse to debate climate science in a comment on an op-ed about climate science, and then you wonder what the arguments are that prove that indeed, human activity is to blame ... ?
Maybe it would be easier (and a bit more useful) to first read the op-ed and then tell us WHAT actually you disagree with, and where the scientific papers are that back up your claims?
Looking forward to reading you (no irony).
Maybe it would be easier (and a bit more useful) to first read the op-ed and then tell us WHAT actually you disagree with, and where the scientific papers are that back up your claims?
Looking forward to reading you (no irony).
6
"I don't see any Toyota prius rescuing people from flooding." Is that a serious statement? I don't see any Ferraris doing it either. Boats are more appropriate for obvious reasons.
I feel horrified for the people of Houston, what is happening to them is appalling, tragic, terrifying, dangerous and an economic and social disaster. (And yes, I've lived in Houston too. It is/was a great city.) We are not lacking in decency or morals, or, dare I say, empathy. I think the point us environmentalists are trying to make is that this is not an act of god or a freak event (especially if you look at the wider world, not just the USA or TX) but part of a predicted trend which is going to get worse, not better. How shall we prepare?
I feel horrified for the people of Houston, what is happening to them is appalling, tragic, terrifying, dangerous and an economic and social disaster. (And yes, I've lived in Houston too. It is/was a great city.) We are not lacking in decency or morals, or, dare I say, empathy. I think the point us environmentalists are trying to make is that this is not an act of god or a freak event (especially if you look at the wider world, not just the USA or TX) but part of a predicted trend which is going to get worse, not better. How shall we prepare?
2
Look I can understand that you want to prove your environmentalist points, but it is just too soon to start arguing while there are people drowning and Houston is under several feet of water.
Texas was once an inland sea. Harvey makes one wonder how it happened.
By definition, the climate is weather patterns over decades. Harvey is just one piece of the current climate puzzle.
By definition, the climate is weather patterns over decades. Harvey is just one piece of the current climate puzzle.
1
Let's be clear. Let's be real honest. The Republicans, (and it is all Republicans, no Democrats) who deny climate change, or raise questions about it, are not stupid.
I know they seem stupid to the rest of us who see the science and see the actual reality that confirms the science, but they are NOT stupid. They are SCARED. They know the facts as well as anyone, however their jobs depend on supporting the petroleum industry. Texas is the classic case! Big Oil calls the shots. Elected officials better get in line if they want to be funded and stay in office.
Look around the entire world. Every nation accepts the fact of global warming and is taking action to mitigate it. Look a the Paris Accord. We are the ONLY nation except Syria and Nicaragua that has backed off. It is not a question of what, it is a question of will.
So it is somehow fitting that the Harvey hurricane and destruction has hit the home of the major climate deniers. If it had to happen, (and apparently it DID), then far better that it hit Texas than somewhere where the people have been working seriously to remove and/or resolve the problem.
I'm sure may residents of Texas are NOT climate deniers, and for them I feel particular sympathy. It is a huge tragedy, that quite likely could have been averted if we addressed the cause earlier.
I know they seem stupid to the rest of us who see the science and see the actual reality that confirms the science, but they are NOT stupid. They are SCARED. They know the facts as well as anyone, however their jobs depend on supporting the petroleum industry. Texas is the classic case! Big Oil calls the shots. Elected officials better get in line if they want to be funded and stay in office.
Look around the entire world. Every nation accepts the fact of global warming and is taking action to mitigate it. Look a the Paris Accord. We are the ONLY nation except Syria and Nicaragua that has backed off. It is not a question of what, it is a question of will.
So it is somehow fitting that the Harvey hurricane and destruction has hit the home of the major climate deniers. If it had to happen, (and apparently it DID), then far better that it hit Texas than somewhere where the people have been working seriously to remove and/or resolve the problem.
I'm sure may residents of Texas are NOT climate deniers, and for them I feel particular sympathy. It is a huge tragedy, that quite likely could have been averted if we addressed the cause earlier.
4
This is pseudoscience journalism. The level of supposition and "it stands to reason" implied causality is beyond the prior norms of Al Gore and his ilk.
This will no doubt get scolded by the semi-educated liberal arts college grads that frequent these bumper-sticker slogan boards. [If it even gets posted.] Those people pretend to know all and have made their "minds" up.
This is meant for the NYT editorial board. You would help the world so much more if you got back to fact reporting and had dabbler economists stick to their knitting of ruing inequality. This piece belongs in lesser publications.
This will no doubt get scolded by the semi-educated liberal arts college grads that frequent these bumper-sticker slogan boards. [If it even gets posted.] Those people pretend to know all and have made their "minds" up.
This is meant for the NYT editorial board. You would help the world so much more if you got back to fact reporting and had dabbler economists stick to their knitting of ruing inequality. This piece belongs in lesser publications.
2
Could you please tell us what in your opinion isn't a proven fact in what this op-ed writes, and send a link to the scientific paper(s) that prove that fact to be wrong?
Because imho that's the only way to elevate the debate beyond the bumper-sticker slogan level, no?
Because imho that's the only way to elevate the debate beyond the bumper-sticker slogan level, no?
I'm guessing the author lives in New York? Blame the victim works best when done from a distance...
1
I don't believe that Mr. Trump or his EPA head don't know that climate change is real and is being driven by fossil fuel use. The same goes for Ryan and McConnell, or for that matter most Republicans in congress. So why dop they deny it?
Is it for money, is it for power? The answer is yes. Money drives their campaigns and power corrupts, as has been said before.
I am growing to realize that Republican politicians are not good people! It's time to discard the 2 party system and the electoral college.
Is it for money, is it for power? The answer is yes. Money drives their campaigns and power corrupts, as has been said before.
I am growing to realize that Republican politicians are not good people! It's time to discard the 2 party system and the electoral college.
3
My heart is with the citizens of Texas. We, in this country, are more alike than we are different. We care about and take care of each other. And, as Hurricane Harvey has so readily shown, our compassion for each other is abundant and overwhelming and we are willing to risk everything to take care of one another.
We are Americans.
We are Americans.
1
Burning coal, wood, and dung loads the air with fine dust and carbon dioxide. The fine dust sticks in our lungs and causes disease. The carbon dioxide slows the rate at which heat can leave the Earth; it's like a blanket, and the planet heats up. Summer heat kills people. Warmer water causes storms. Warmer air holds more water.
Harvey could not have occurred 100 years ago. Future storms will be stronger and wetter.
Harvey could not have occurred 100 years ago. Future storms will be stronger and wetter.
4
After having been a vocal minority in this country in the past, denouncing Darwinism as a "religion" that wanted to destroy Christianity, it seems to be the same people today who fear that climate science will somehow destroy their own belief system and prefer to cling to it.
The argument does seem to have shifted though, as comments below show.
All of a sudden, natural selection is accepted as a theory explaining natural history, so what is necessary today, according to these people, is that we learn to "adapt" to global warming - because only the fittest will survive.
Let's make no mistake: these people are NOT asking Trump to stop playing the ignorant fool and start doing something about global warming. They continue to believe already scientifically refuted hypotheses such as that what happens today happened before and that human activity cannot possibly be seen as what caused the current global warming. As a consequence, they do NOT want us to start actively reduce CO2 emissions (they often also refuse to understand that it's CO2 that is causing today's warming), and support Trump's decision to go against 70% of the American people and withdraw the US from the Paris accord (often repeating his famous lies about that accord).
They simply believe that the earth IS warming, that that's "natural", and that all that we can/should do is to "adapt". For instance leaving costal areas, build better levies, etc.
It's time to try to help them update their info a bit more!
The argument does seem to have shifted though, as comments below show.
All of a sudden, natural selection is accepted as a theory explaining natural history, so what is necessary today, according to these people, is that we learn to "adapt" to global warming - because only the fittest will survive.
Let's make no mistake: these people are NOT asking Trump to stop playing the ignorant fool and start doing something about global warming. They continue to believe already scientifically refuted hypotheses such as that what happens today happened before and that human activity cannot possibly be seen as what caused the current global warming. As a consequence, they do NOT want us to start actively reduce CO2 emissions (they often also refuse to understand that it's CO2 that is causing today's warming), and support Trump's decision to go against 70% of the American people and withdraw the US from the Paris accord (often repeating his famous lies about that accord).
They simply believe that the earth IS warming, that that's "natural", and that all that we can/should do is to "adapt". For instance leaving costal areas, build better levies, etc.
It's time to try to help them update their info a bit more!
3
David, What do you attribute the below event to?
"During a classic El Nino year in 1913, heavy rains drenched Texas. In this photo, taken during the December 1913 floods, kids wade in feet-high water on St. Mary's Street at Houston Streets. The last tens days in November 1913 saw heavy rains that laid the foundation for flooding during the first five days of December. Rainfall totals measured 20 to 25 inches, causing 180 drownings."
"During a classic El Nino year in 1913, heavy rains drenched Texas. In this photo, taken during the December 1913 floods, kids wade in feet-high water on St. Mary's Street at Houston Streets. The last tens days in November 1913 saw heavy rains that laid the foundation for flooding during the first five days of December. Rainfall totals measured 20 to 25 inches, causing 180 drownings."
2
What a strange question.
Yes, climate change was already under way by then, but atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than they are today, ocean temperatures were lower, as were global temperatures.
Today, all these factors (which have been proven to contribute to the intensity of a hurricane) have strongly deteriorated, and as a consequence, rainfall totals already exceed 45 inches, and two feet of additional rainfall is expected in the days to come.
So what is your point, actually?
Yes, climate change was already under way by then, but atmospheric CO2 levels were much lower than they are today, ocean temperatures were lower, as were global temperatures.
Today, all these factors (which have been proven to contribute to the intensity of a hurricane) have strongly deteriorated, and as a consequence, rainfall totals already exceed 45 inches, and two feet of additional rainfall is expected in the days to come.
So what is your point, actually?
3
Thomas, Harvey's rainfall in parts of Texas are already TWICE your cited totals, and there's more to come. To what do you attribute that?
Has mother nature chastised Texas for it's slow embrace of climate change solutions? The land of the F-150, the over abundance of suburbans and expeditions, and the mindless idling of these large vehicles in parking lots, are symptoms of resistance to climate change and the steps we must take to continue breathing in an over heated planet. Yes, we have substantial progress in renewable sources such as wind, and some solar power, but much more public education is needed to move us away from dependence on fossil fuels.
1
you know the only vehicles that can help people from the flooding are boats and high clearance trucks. But since you're such an intelligent human who seems to know better than this, what do you propose we do to convince the people stuck on rooftops and sitting in waist deep water that their trucks are the reason they're in this mess?
2
As a professional communicator who's dedicated the last 10+ years to raising awareness of climate change and ways we can fight it, and having subscribed to the NYT seven days a week for the last 20+ years, I can confidently say that the Times is one of the few mainstream papers covering the impacts of climate change.
It's reporters and columnists are among the best in the industry, IMHO, and the paper is to be applauded for its storytelling on this issue. Reporters and columnists need not be climate experts. While they need to be accurate when reporting the facts, a columnist's job is to share opinions and provoke thought.
Climate change is the greatest threat and opportunity that we collectively face. We can fight it and leaders around the world--as well as thousands upon thousands of individuals--are doing just that. Our free press helps us understand what's happening and what we can and need to do to make a difference and win that fight.
One of the best pieces I've read on this is was in fact written by a climate expert and meteorologist under the headline "Harvey is What Climate Change Looks Like."
"Once Harvey’s floodwaters recede, the process will begin to imagine a New Houston, and that city will inevitably endure future mega-rainstorms as the world warms. The rebuilding process provides an opportunity to chart a new path. The choice isn’t between left and right, or denier and believer. The choice is between success and failure." -- Eric Holthaus, Politico
It's reporters and columnists are among the best in the industry, IMHO, and the paper is to be applauded for its storytelling on this issue. Reporters and columnists need not be climate experts. While they need to be accurate when reporting the facts, a columnist's job is to share opinions and provoke thought.
Climate change is the greatest threat and opportunity that we collectively face. We can fight it and leaders around the world--as well as thousands upon thousands of individuals--are doing just that. Our free press helps us understand what's happening and what we can and need to do to make a difference and win that fight.
One of the best pieces I've read on this is was in fact written by a climate expert and meteorologist under the headline "Harvey is What Climate Change Looks Like."
"Once Harvey’s floodwaters recede, the process will begin to imagine a New Houston, and that city will inevitably endure future mega-rainstorms as the world warms. The rebuilding process provides an opportunity to chart a new path. The choice isn’t between left and right, or denier and believer. The choice is between success and failure." -- Eric Holthaus, Politico
5
I would lean more heavily on the second part of humans causing this disaster: that part of Texas is a very poor place to put the nation's 4th largest city. Now we all help pay for fixing up the mess.
2
well I doubt, you'll be paying too much considering that Texas has the second highest revenue in the nation. There is an odd correlation between the air pollution and GDP of States, its almost like the states that utilize natural resources and burn fossil fuels, actually make money.
2
Nice opinion piece. Why won't the New York Times reporters make the link to climate change? It's long been well documented that the fossil fuel industry deliberately works to create a "reasonable doubt" - just enough to keep a critical mass of people from demanding change. When will the NYT stand up to the fossil fuel industry and tell the truth on its news pages?
1
Karen - what you want is the narrative you want to hear. IMO the Times in the climate section over plays the scientific data and does not report at all the problems with the data. And -- despite Leonhardt's impeccable scientific credentials (I think he turned down the nobel in physics to write opinion pieces for the Times) an N of 1 is merely anecdotal data. And Mr. Leonhardt does not explain what the 12 year hiatus of major hurricanes hitting the US means -- what proof it provides re CC.
1
@ Ralphie
Could you please indicate where precisely, according to you, this op-ed "overplays the scientific data", and what the scientific papers are that allows you to claim something like that?
Thanks in advance.
Could you please indicate where precisely, according to you, this op-ed "overplays the scientific data", and what the scientific papers are that allows you to claim something like that?
Thanks in advance.
Ana Luisa -- you must not have read my other posts. Until Harvey, there had been a 12 year drought of major hurricanes hitting the US. So, if you want to accept Harvey as evidence for CC, you would also have to accept the 12 prior years as evidence against, wouldn't you? And, as any one with any statistical background knows, an N of 1 is merely anecdotal regardless of how rare. Statistically, Harvey was not an anomaly as a hurricane. Since 1851 the US has averaged 6 major hurricanes (cat 3 or large) per decade. There have also been many hurricanes/trop storms that have had rainfall totals of 30 inches plus (the avg for a normally moving tropical storm is 16 inches).
The unusual thing is that Harvey stalled while still in the gulf and happened to just keep pumping water that hit a major population center. That's unusual, but not attributable to CC.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the Gulf of Mexico has warmed. We don't have extensive historical data on gulf temps, but I've run the numbers from NOAA for the areas that primarily front the gulf (earlier comment) and since 1895 max temps have either stayed flat or declined. Temps vary year to year by quite a bit, but the temp variation is simply normal var. No evidence for warming. Period.
The unusual thing is that Harvey stalled while still in the gulf and happened to just keep pumping water that hit a major population center. That's unusual, but not attributable to CC.
Moreover, there is no evidence that the Gulf of Mexico has warmed. We don't have extensive historical data on gulf temps, but I've run the numbers from NOAA for the areas that primarily front the gulf (earlier comment) and since 1895 max temps have either stayed flat or declined. Temps vary year to year by quite a bit, but the temp variation is simply normal var. No evidence for warming. Period.
1
Thank you for making the connection between climate change and public health. Again and again, our elected officials seem to take the side of big business over the safety and well-being of their constituents, whether enacting common-sense gun laws or protecting our planet are up for debate. My fear is that not even Harvey will open the hearts and minds of those whose campaign war chests depend on funding from fossil fuel interests. The parents of Sandy Hook couldn’t overpower the NRA. And all the while, companies like Exxon Mobil have been playing both sides of the climate change debate in their own best interests, “studying its impact on the company’s operations, while crafting a public policy position that sought to downplay the certainty of global warming” (from an LA Times report highlighted by NYT on August 23). Balanced investigative news reporting plays a critical role in arming ordinary citizens with the information we need to protect our own best interests.
1
The hurricane is courtesy of the weather; period.
4
Yes, just like cancer is courtesy of death. Or is it courtesy of life and the way we live? Or both? Period.
1
Jan And you are an expert of course. Please post your credentials so that we can take your informed word for it against that of the most knowledgeable scientists in the world, plus the evidence of our own eyes.
I readily accept that CO2 emissions are causing Climate change; causing hurricanes like Harvey to occur more frequently and to be more intense. But there are a few links in that chain of reasoning that, while convincing for (a scientist) like me, apparently give enough room for a "climate-skeptics" to be unconvinced.
However, what I cannot understand is why development is permitted on known and even MAN-MADE flood-plains. Harvey has been unusually intense but most of the places flooding in Houston today have flooded before - most recently last year in the "tax-day" and will flood again. We KNEW this was going to happen. And we KNOW they will flood again.
Consider my nearest and most glaring example - one mile from where I sit writing, people are being evacuated from the Canyon Gate and Kelliwood neighborhoods of Katy, Texas. This area was built INSIDE a MAN-MADE flood control reservoir (the so called Barker Reservoir) built in 1945 to protect the rest of Houston. An area designed to be flooded.
The fact that was allowed should be criminal.
However, what I cannot understand is why development is permitted on known and even MAN-MADE flood-plains. Harvey has been unusually intense but most of the places flooding in Houston today have flooded before - most recently last year in the "tax-day" and will flood again. We KNEW this was going to happen. And we KNOW they will flood again.
Consider my nearest and most glaring example - one mile from where I sit writing, people are being evacuated from the Canyon Gate and Kelliwood neighborhoods of Katy, Texas. This area was built INSIDE a MAN-MADE flood control reservoir (the so called Barker Reservoir) built in 1945 to protect the rest of Houston. An area designed to be flooded.
The fact that was allowed should be criminal.
5
The answer is because that is what your fellow Texans think "freedom" is - no pesky gov'mint regulations telling you where you can build; thus, you are free to build your home in a flood zone - congratulations! Same concept of "freedom" allowed a nursing home to be constructed next to chemical fertilizer plant in West, Texas, resulting in that explosion catastrophe a few years back. So much for the purported common sense of conservatives.
I am a retired USAF and university meteorologist. I have read recently that research meteorologists are beginning to "attribute" the cause of particular storms to our warming climate -- to our changing climate change. The fact that the moisture holding ability of air -- our atmosphere -- increases very, very fast with increasing temperature helps explain the historic flooding from Hurricane Harvey.
3
@Walter, I have to believe our paths have crossed. I was AWS 1958-1980.
Fussiness about truth is what separates the honorable from the Trumpian.
5
Disparate disciplines are at play here, or so it seems to me. Science deals with probabilities, not certainties. Theology, once deemed 'Queen of the Sciences' posits faith as fundamental; one view of faith, 'resting in the s sufficiency of the evidence, not requiring evidence complete. When it comes to 'climate', the two meet well in call for action. However, a third discipline (Psychology) may chime, 'It all depends', i.e. depends on perception, inviting a fourth, from philosophy, e.g. 'how can we know, in the first place?' Yet, even another, political perspective/identityt...Must disparate disciplines leave us frozen in ambivalence or at sea in denial? For me, not at all. The only question, will the masses rise from cultural slumber in time to arrest destruction of our home, planet earth. What are the odds?
1
Reaping what we sow: Houston is one of the centers of the fossil fuel industry, so it's not hard to connect the dots, & while I've been waxing biblical, resonances of the Great Flood are stark as could be.
Most recall that Great Flood was visited on humanity for that evil generation's greed & selfishness, not so much for overt brutal criminality, but petty economic violence below the radar of criminal prosecution, mutual predatoriness that rejected the divine element built into mankind.
I wonder if this isn't the same kind of greed finally coming to roost. Although 80s "human capital" (Hobbesian "rational choice theory" etc.) dogma hyper-glorifying wealth & profit motive, & related neoconservative doctrine, have somewhat waned in prestige, the ultimate emblem of that era's commercial ideology & crassness is president.
They said then honest selfishness devoid of moral 'pretense' (ie, how the economists regarded all moral claims: mere sanctimony) would lift humanity. Instead, so much of humanity is drowning, just like in the Bible.
Let's not forget how those economists & their cohorts urged on us the idea that an "invisible hand," expressing "market efficiency" based on the aggregate effects of everybody pursuing their selfish ends would promote not only the most moral outcome, but better environmental/climate conditions than could ever be advanced by deliberate gov't strategies to protect the environment. If that ain't idolatry, I don't know what is. "Reap as you sow."
Most recall that Great Flood was visited on humanity for that evil generation's greed & selfishness, not so much for overt brutal criminality, but petty economic violence below the radar of criminal prosecution, mutual predatoriness that rejected the divine element built into mankind.
I wonder if this isn't the same kind of greed finally coming to roost. Although 80s "human capital" (Hobbesian "rational choice theory" etc.) dogma hyper-glorifying wealth & profit motive, & related neoconservative doctrine, have somewhat waned in prestige, the ultimate emblem of that era's commercial ideology & crassness is president.
They said then honest selfishness devoid of moral 'pretense' (ie, how the economists regarded all moral claims: mere sanctimony) would lift humanity. Instead, so much of humanity is drowning, just like in the Bible.
Let's not forget how those economists & their cohorts urged on us the idea that an "invisible hand," expressing "market efficiency" based on the aggregate effects of everybody pursuing their selfish ends would promote not only the most moral outcome, but better environmental/climate conditions than could ever be advanced by deliberate gov't strategies to protect the environment. If that ain't idolatry, I don't know what is. "Reap as you sow."
3
The juxtaposition of the reluctance to confront global warming with the inspirational stories of people coming together to protect one another in Houston suggests another unpleasant truth. There is a good heartedness in our fellow Americans that comes out in times like this and that is at odds with the nastiness of political debates over global warming -- or, for that matter, over whether we should send federal aid to victims of Superstorm Sandy or Hurricane Harvey.
It's hard to watch this without blaming Fox News. radio talk show hosts, and Republican politicians who have profited by stirring up irrational anger and opposition against those who want to deal with the issue of global warming. They've given us natural disasters, and they're responsible as well for stirring up the nasty passions and prejudices that have inflicted Trump upon us. History will not treat them well -- if the world survives to tell the story.
It's hard to watch this without blaming Fox News. radio talk show hosts, and Republican politicians who have profited by stirring up irrational anger and opposition against those who want to deal with the issue of global warming. They've given us natural disasters, and they're responsible as well for stirring up the nasty passions and prejudices that have inflicted Trump upon us. History will not treat them well -- if the world survives to tell the story.
6
What concerns me about climate change is that it is largely irreversible. The world recovered from WW 11. (Except for the 60 million who died.) We can adapt for awhile, but eventually it may be the end of life as we know it. We are missing the chance to keep our world from cooking. It won't be as easy, and may eventually be no longer possible.
. We believe the scientists can predict with amazing accuracy the timing of eclipses centuries into the future. So far the conspiracy theorists haven't gotten a good hold on this. (Some have tried!) We need a way to enhance our foresight about climate change with the same degree of urgency that we protected our eyes from cooking by looking at the solar eclipse.
. We believe the scientists can predict with amazing accuracy the timing of eclipses centuries into the future. So far the conspiracy theorists haven't gotten a good hold on this. (Some have tried!) We need a way to enhance our foresight about climate change with the same degree of urgency that we protected our eyes from cooking by looking at the solar eclipse.
1
Texans should be asking Governor Gregg Abbott, "Why were you lying to me about climate change all these years?" Governor Abbott and every well-educated denier was lying about the phenomenon, either in a bald-faced way or to themselves. I'm dying to know if he is going to continue lying or, if not, how he's going to pull off the pivot of acknowledging it.
5
One commenter writes: "When will the discussion turn from blaming republicans for climate change to actually adapting to it?" Maybe he hasn't heard that GOP politicians were "thrilled" that Trump dumped Obama-era rule that highways be built to withstand flooding. Or maybe he doesn't know that GOP Senator Cruz vetoed the Sandy relief bill because it contained "pork" such as protecting military installations.
The reason why the GOP must be blamed is because there is one and only one way to address and/or adapt to climate change: vote Republicans out of office.
The reason why the GOP must be blamed is because there is one and only one way to address and/or adapt to climate change: vote Republicans out of office.
8
Perhaps, "Harvey" is just more "Phony science" and "Fake News". I'm waiting for Trump's proclamation following his visit.
2
Why is it that the only friends I have that deny climate change or deny that we can do anything about it are Republicans? I think I see a correlation - if Dems are for it they are against it ( watch fox News to see oppoistism in action)
5
The climate denialism of Trump, Scott Pruitt, Rex Tillerson, Mike Pence and the majority of the GOP is absolutely criminal. These people are stealing our future. Lives and property will be lost through climate change-charged extreme weather, disease, and drought. Millions will become climate refugees because of these criminals. As for Trump, his pull out from the Paris Climate Pact and all the other policies he is enacting that worsen climate change are the main reason why he must be removed from office.
9
Agreed, Francesca, but oddly enough, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson (former CEO of EXXON) and Secretary of Defense James Mattis are climate change believers. Zinke flip-flops. Pruitt.....hopeless.
The #1 way for individuals to come together and lessen climate change is STOP EATING LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS-- meat, poultry & dairy. The Nov/Dec 2009 issue of Worldwatch featured a staggering report by two highly respected environmental-impact specialists for the World Bank, Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang: "Livestock and Climate Change: What if the key actors in climate change are… cows, pigs, and chickens?" Goodland, for 23 years the "conscience of the World Bank" as its chief environmental impact assessor, and Anhang critiqued the FAO's conservative 2006 report (based on obsolete data and fewer real impacts on climate change). Goodland and Anhang declared the true contribution of animal agriculture to human-caused greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions is not 18% (the FAO figure), but is "AT LEAST 51%" of all emissions! (See the report pdf, a follow-on reply by Goodland to questions, and other related articles at www.chompingclimatechange.org/publications/articles/.)
In other words, exploiting animals for food is BY FAR the biggest contributor to ruinous climate change, more than coal-fired powered plants and all forms of transportation combined. Goodland, before his death in 2013, warned that the only viable short-term way to alleviate climate change is a dramatic shift by year 2020 of 50%-85% of the global population away from meat, dairy, fish, and eggs toward VEGAN FOOD-CHOICES.
So for anyone wondering "what to do?" -- you join growing millions of other people and GO VEGAN.
In other words, exploiting animals for food is BY FAR the biggest contributor to ruinous climate change, more than coal-fired powered plants and all forms of transportation combined. Goodland, before his death in 2013, warned that the only viable short-term way to alleviate climate change is a dramatic shift by year 2020 of 50%-85% of the global population away from meat, dairy, fish, and eggs toward VEGAN FOOD-CHOICES.
So for anyone wondering "what to do?" -- you join growing millions of other people and GO VEGAN.
2
GOOD ADVICE
As soon as i drive my Hummer to get my last triple patty cheese bacon burger. I promise.
As soon as i drive my Hummer to get my last triple patty cheese bacon burger. I promise.
2
Is it just coincidence that this biblical-scale catastrophe has been visited on the citadel of the climate-change deniers and Exxon? What will it take for them to get the message?
1
There is one step that everyone can take to help alleviate global warming: PLANT TREES EVERYWHERE. There are vast areas of the US and elsewhere on the planet without fresh water irrigation and without trees. Trees are nature's recycling mechanism for the atmosphere. Trees remove carbon from the air and replace it with oxygen. A worldwide program is now essential for the planet. Desalinize sea water into fresh water. Irrigate arid land masses. Plant trees across the globe. Enact laws preventing deforestation. Cultivate forests to prevent wildfires.
2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU
" . . . Has there been “recent” warming? Yes, the global climate has definitely warmed since the Little Ice Age (about 1400-1700 AD), and it will likely continue to warm for another 200-300 years, in fits and starts, towards a max temp roughly matching that of the Medieval Warm Period. That time followed a colder period before the founding of Rome between about 750 BC to 200 BC. By 150 BC the climate had warmed enough for the first grapes and olives to be cultivated in northern Italy. As recently as 1,000 years ago, Icelandic Vikings were raising cattle, sheep and goats in grasslands on Greenland’s southwestern coast. . . . "
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-glo...
" . . . Has there been “recent” warming? Yes, the global climate has definitely warmed since the Little Ice Age (about 1400-1700 AD), and it will likely continue to warm for another 200-300 years, in fits and starts, towards a max temp roughly matching that of the Medieval Warm Period. That time followed a colder period before the founding of Rome between about 750 BC to 200 BC. By 150 BC the climate had warmed enough for the first grapes and olives to be cultivated in northern Italy. As recently as 1,000 years ago, Icelandic Vikings were raising cattle, sheep and goats in grasslands on Greenland’s southwestern coast. . . . "
https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/08/21/the-new-york-times-glo...
3
Those are 2013 data.
Today, it has been proven that there was no such a thing as a "Medieval Warming period".
The warming only occurred in the northern hemisphere, and for decades scientists assumed that measurements in the north would match those in the south, without verifying.
Now they did verify, and noticed that during that period, the south was cooler than before, and that on average, GLOBAL temperatures didn't go up during the Middle Ages.
If I may give you some advice: don't read political pundits when you want to know something about science, but start reading vulgarizing scientific books or articles, if you want to understand how manmade global warming has been proven.
Today, it has been proven that there was no such a thing as a "Medieval Warming period".
The warming only occurred in the northern hemisphere, and for decades scientists assumed that measurements in the north would match those in the south, without verifying.
Now they did verify, and noticed that during that period, the south was cooler than before, and that on average, GLOBAL temperatures didn't go up during the Middle Ages.
If I may give you some advice: don't read political pundits when you want to know something about science, but start reading vulgarizing scientific books or articles, if you want to understand how manmade global warming has been proven.
I couldn't agree more! We all need to do our part. However, it needs to start at the top and I do not see our backward thinking administration taking the steps that need to be done. Thank you for your fine article.
1
After Hurricane Sandy hit New Jersey and other East Coast states causing vast devastation, Texas was one of several states that voted in Congress to deny federal funds to the victims of Sandy. It will be interesting to see how Northeastern States vote in Congress when it is time to appropriate federal funds to recover from Harvey.
10
Given the popularity of Mr. Cruz and Mr. Cornyn, we should at least expect a lively debate.
New Yorkers are not petty, small people. We are cosmopolitan, broad minded and generous, even to those who are unworthy of our largess. There will be little to no objection.
What is there to debate ? We need to help our fellow citizens who are in need. New Yorkers stand shoulder to shoulder with our brothers and sisters in Texas !
Well, the rain is still falling but one of our local Sinclair Broadcasting TV weather presenters and climate change denier is already sending out nonsense that climate change had nothing to do with Harvey.
My favorite is a chart purporting to show that the western Gulf of Mexico waters were no warmer than "average". Except he used the past 20 years, not the 1980-2010 period currently used for climate averages. If you use the accepted 1980-2010 average, it's clear the water temperature was about 0.5C (or 1 standard deviation) above climatology.
Further, regardless of which time period you use for comparison, it's also clear that western Gulf of Mexico water temperatures have INCREASED during the period.
How anyone gets to do weather on TV without a basic concept of science or statistics is beyond me. Unless you're really one of Sinclair's political propagandists hiding in the weather department.
My favorite is a chart purporting to show that the western Gulf of Mexico waters were no warmer than "average". Except he used the past 20 years, not the 1980-2010 period currently used for climate averages. If you use the accepted 1980-2010 average, it's clear the water temperature was about 0.5C (or 1 standard deviation) above climatology.
Further, regardless of which time period you use for comparison, it's also clear that western Gulf of Mexico water temperatures have INCREASED during the period.
How anyone gets to do weather on TV without a basic concept of science or statistics is beyond me. Unless you're really one of Sinclair's political propagandists hiding in the weather department.
9
Sinclair is an integral part of the media-disinformation complex. To expect truth from Sinclair is like expecting a rabbit to quote Shakespeare.
5
Joe S. How does anyone get to do weather on TV without a basic concept of science... Same way a partisan left journalist like Leonhardt who has no concept of science or stats gets to write a column proclaiming that Harvey is a result of climate change -- without bothering to explain what the 12 year drought in major hurricanes hitting the US coast means or that an N of 1 is nothing more than anecdotal data. Or that since 1851 we've had an avg of 6 major hurricanes per decade hitting the US. Or that there have been several other storms that have dumped massive amts of rain. Or -- here's a good one -- that the temp trends for the gulf coast facing areas in the contiguous US have not warmed since 1895 -- and that the max temps have in fact decreased. All annoying little facts that the church of climate alarmism refuses to pay attention to.
Carbon fuel based costs do not cover the risks associated with their usage. Solar, wind and hydropower do not cause the disastrous long term damage to health and infrastructure that are caused by the utilization oil, coal and other carbon based fuels. The likelihood that our over utilization of carbon based fuels causes catastrophic events such as Harvey is extremely high. In the past, as a society, we believed our sciences because they provide our most accurate probabilistic risk assessments. Based on today's science, we need to compute and charge appropriate costs for the use of carbon based fuels to have the global users pay for the long term damage they cause, until we can replace their usage with lower cost, economy growing, and less damaging energy sources.
4
"flooding of biblical proportions" does not represent a credible source. The bible was written and rewritten and rewritten by men most of whom probably never ventured beyond 12 miles in their lifetimes. It is not exactly known for its consistency or lack of fantasy.
"hypothetical truth" has no meaning. In science, hypotheses are formulated, tested, and rejected (or not rejected) in light of observations. No mention of the word "truth" to be found, because truth connotes certainty.
"hypothetical truth" has no meaning. In science, hypotheses are formulated, tested, and rejected (or not rejected) in light of observations. No mention of the word "truth" to be found, because truth connotes certainty.
1
Unfortunately this nation especially seems to be more prone to procrastination than practicality. We tend to wait until the very last minute to address issues we know are well on their way. At that point the cost or ability to address them is generally exponentially more than if we had done so when we first knew. We as a nation seem to be very slow to learn lessons. This lesson may very well be thee biggest most deadly experience ever learned. Profit before practicality is our norm. I wonder how long now before we reach a point where all our profits are absorbed by the maintenance of natural disasters.
5
How is Medical Science Contributing to Climate Change?
The answer to this question is plain and simple...medical science is keeping people alive much too long. And how is this contributing to climate change. The longer people live on this planet, the greater the planet's population and the greater the carbon footprint they produce. The greater the carbon footprint, the greater the temperature increases of this Earth.
Medical doctors and others in the medical community mean well when they save lives but their actions are helping to destroy this planet. No one wants to see anyone die of disease but doctors must realize that to save a life or extend a life means more people will be living on this planet.
The answer to this question is plain and simple...medical science is keeping people alive much too long. And how is this contributing to climate change. The longer people live on this planet, the greater the planet's population and the greater the carbon footprint they produce. The greater the carbon footprint, the greater the temperature increases of this Earth.
Medical doctors and others in the medical community mean well when they save lives but their actions are helping to destroy this planet. No one wants to see anyone die of disease but doctors must realize that to save a life or extend a life means more people will be living on this planet.
1
I think a more important question would be this: "How is the lack of easily accessible birth control contributing to climate change?" And "How is the ban on birth control by some religions contributing to climate change?"
4
Lol ... .
The more people live on the planet each year, the more people will die.
It's thanks to doctors that babies can be born without difficulties and live.
Conclusion: it's doctors' fault that more and more people will die.
This argument follows exactly the same kind of logic as yours. Aristotle already called it an "invalid syllogism". In this case, it's invalid (= it doesn't prove what it claims to prove, so it doesn't prove the truth of the conclusion) because the middle term isn't evenly distributed ... even though I suppose that you don't have to understand these technical terms in order to see why your conclusion is wrong?
The more people live on the planet each year, the more people will die.
It's thanks to doctors that babies can be born without difficulties and live.
Conclusion: it's doctors' fault that more and more people will die.
This argument follows exactly the same kind of logic as yours. Aristotle already called it an "invalid syllogism". In this case, it's invalid (= it doesn't prove what it claims to prove, so it doesn't prove the truth of the conclusion) because the middle term isn't evenly distributed ... even though I suppose that you don't have to understand these technical terms in order to see why your conclusion is wrong?
2
In my opinion, the world has just one problem, overpopulation, period.
1
I have been wracking my brains to figure out how President Trump could help the country reach a political consensus on "climate change". How does he transition the public mindset from Climate Change, or Global Warming, is a hoax to:
"Today, I am committing the Nation to the largest public and private investment in our history to reducing emissions of global warming gasses in the history of humankind. We will do whatever it takes. The survival of civilization is at stake. How long will it take? I don't know, but the time from the posting of the letter from Einstein, Fermi, and Szilard to FDR until we exploded the first bomb over Hiroshima, took less than 3 years. This huge industrial effort organized as the famed Manhattan Project changed the future of the World. We will do it again!"
I imagine President Trump will use his Oval Office to perform the effect of a very tiny amount of carbon dioxide to a sealed container of DC air and watch the well instrumented temperature rise on thermometers of the effect. This experiment, as described in Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook, the Bible of chemical engineering schools should be visually convincing.
I imagine that he would invite the leaders of Congress and the hydrocarbon industries, to witness the experiment.
He then would announce a new "Manhattan Project" based on James Powell's "Silent Earth" and an international effort to instrument the thawing permafrost, so we would know when we must complete the Project.
"Today, I am committing the Nation to the largest public and private investment in our history to reducing emissions of global warming gasses in the history of humankind. We will do whatever it takes. The survival of civilization is at stake. How long will it take? I don't know, but the time from the posting of the letter from Einstein, Fermi, and Szilard to FDR until we exploded the first bomb over Hiroshima, took less than 3 years. This huge industrial effort organized as the famed Manhattan Project changed the future of the World. We will do it again!"
I imagine President Trump will use his Oval Office to perform the effect of a very tiny amount of carbon dioxide to a sealed container of DC air and watch the well instrumented temperature rise on thermometers of the effect. This experiment, as described in Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook, the Bible of chemical engineering schools should be visually convincing.
I imagine that he would invite the leaders of Congress and the hydrocarbon industries, to witness the experiment.
He then would announce a new "Manhattan Project" based on James Powell's "Silent Earth" and an international effort to instrument the thawing permafrost, so we would know when we must complete the Project.
3
Please accept correction: "Racking my brain".
I am also sure that the political leadership should include Senator Bernie Sanders because during the first debate, he responded “The scientific community is telling us if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable,”
“That is a major crisis.”
If I were the adviser, I would also use the occasion to award Presidential Medals to James Powell, posthumously to Gordon Danby, the co-inventors of superconducting Maglev in 1966 and posthumously to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who in the very beginning brought to the attention of Nixon the issue of climate change, and then later became a champion of complementing our Interstate Highway System with a 300 mph superconducting Maglev for trucks, passengers and their autos. See www.magneticglide.com for the concept. Secretary Elaine Chao should also be present because she appeared as the Deputy D.O.T. Secretary before Senator Moynihan's Maglev hearings in 1992 and was a strong supporter of Moynihan's dream to start of Maglev R&D program. It was adopted in the Senate but met opposition from vested interests in the House. Elaine Chao McConnell has a copy of "Silent Earth."
This is a remarkable system and can be a new industry and global export for the US. Mr. President are you listening?
I am also sure that the political leadership should include Senator Bernie Sanders because during the first debate, he responded “The scientific community is telling us if we do not address the global crisis of climate change, transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to sustainable energy, the planet that we’re going to be leaving our kids and our grandchildren may well not be habitable,”
“That is a major crisis.”
If I were the adviser, I would also use the occasion to award Presidential Medals to James Powell, posthumously to Gordon Danby, the co-inventors of superconducting Maglev in 1966 and posthumously to Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who in the very beginning brought to the attention of Nixon the issue of climate change, and then later became a champion of complementing our Interstate Highway System with a 300 mph superconducting Maglev for trucks, passengers and their autos. See www.magneticglide.com for the concept. Secretary Elaine Chao should also be present because she appeared as the Deputy D.O.T. Secretary before Senator Moynihan's Maglev hearings in 1992 and was a strong supporter of Moynihan's dream to start of Maglev R&D program. It was adopted in the Senate but met opposition from vested interests in the House. Elaine Chao McConnell has a copy of "Silent Earth."
This is a remarkable system and can be a new industry and global export for the US. Mr. President are you listening?
1
We can dream.
1
You're assuming that Trump is a reasonable person who is willing to learn and who doesn't just shout that he already knows best about everything even though he's so arrogantly unread that he actually doesn't know much about anything.
2
Climate change changes the frequencies of extreme climate events. If we have an ice age, extreme hurricanes will be less frequent; if we have global warming, extreme hurricanes will be more frequent. If I choose a card from a normal deck of cards, the chances of choosing a club are 1 in 4. If I choose the card from a deck of cards with four added cubs and 8 fewer diamonds, the chances of choosing a club are now 1 in 3. But if the chosen card is a club, the changes didn't cause that event; they just made it more likely.
2
I have watched a lot of Texas TV the last few days (I'm 90) but don't remember seeing one confederate flag. A minute ago I saw a large pickup displaying two large US flags. It does my heart good. Also, I have seen no signs of racial discrimination. Recover rapidly from this disaster, Texas.
5
Two ironies of the impact of Harvey on Texas:
Texas is a major site of commercial efforts to exploit fossil fuel that is now hobbled by Harvey.
When New York and New Jersey suffered damage from Superstorm Sandy, and its elected leaders sought financial assistance through federal legislation, the Texas contingent of federal legislators loudly objected to it and fought against passage of any legislation to help New York and New Jersey, but now seem to think it wise for the US Government to lend a helping hand to Texans hurting from the storm.
Texas is a major site of commercial efforts to exploit fossil fuel that is now hobbled by Harvey.
When New York and New Jersey suffered damage from Superstorm Sandy, and its elected leaders sought financial assistance through federal legislation, the Texas contingent of federal legislators loudly objected to it and fought against passage of any legislation to help New York and New Jersey, but now seem to think it wise for the US Government to lend a helping hand to Texans hurting from the storm.
8
I heard on the radio this morning that Texas is asking for $150 billion in relief spending from the US government. How much are we spending on preparation for climate change? I also heard this morning that the Sec of State has canceled the Special Envoy for Climate Change in the Arctic. None of this makes any sense.
10
Staying in the Paris accord would have cost us about $75 billion a year ...
3
There's a lot of blame to go around for the creation of a climate that makes mega-storms like Harvey possible, and most of it can be laid at the feet of Republican lawmakers at both the state and national level. Denying climate change is a deadly position embraced by both major corporations and by greedy politicians who want donations from the petroleum industry and other polluters, and by vincibly ignorant voters.
Furthermore, these same lawmakers have not done due diligence about the maintenance of structures that mitigate the effects of normal flooding, nevermind catastrophic storms.
After Katrina 17 major water pumps were not repaired in New Orleans, in spite of the risk that that imposes on every person in the city. Even with Harvey, now "just" a tripical storm, headed for New Orleans, this creates a huge problem, and more suffering for all.
Furthermore, these same lawmakers have not done due diligence about the maintenance of structures that mitigate the effects of normal flooding, nevermind catastrophic storms.
After Katrina 17 major water pumps were not repaired in New Orleans, in spite of the risk that that imposes on every person in the city. Even with Harvey, now "just" a tripical storm, headed for New Orleans, this creates a huge problem, and more suffering for all.
5
All empirical science is based upon probability, not certainty. The is no absolute certainty that an object tossed in the air will fall back, only that this occurrence has never happened and thus there is a extremely high probability that the object will fall back on the next toss upward. The probabilities are mounting that these storms are related to climate change. To say it is a 500 year storm is to say it is unique, since we did not have storm records going back that far.
1
We actually have storm records going back 500 years, when it comes to Texas' coast. That's how we know that this storm is "unprecedented".
The worst hurricane in those 500 years for instance brought only 46 inches in rainfall, and Harvey is already crossing that limit as we write, whereas it is expected to add two feet more of rain ...
The worst hurricane in those 500 years for instance brought only 46 inches in rainfall, and Harvey is already crossing that limit as we write, whereas it is expected to add two feet more of rain ...
1
Ana of Belgium - if you have the storm records for Texas going back 500 years the Karankawa tribe would like them back.
Dear David,
I am thankful for your Op-Ed piece this morning: "Harvey, the Storm that Humans Helped Cause." The media has not done enough to get the climate change message out with clarity. But I do want to suggest that we humans probably didn't cause the tropical cyclone to form; nor are we responsible for the stalling of the storm and its normal behavior of picking up moisture from the sea. We caused conditions that magnified the impact of the storm. Because the heat-holding gases we have spewed into the atmosphere cause both the heating of the ocean and an increase of water vapor in the air, the storm was fueled (intensified) by warmer water and wetter air than we had before climate change. Because the sea level is higher due to the fact that warmer water expands and the melting of land ice adds to the sea's total volume, the possibility of a more damaging surge was there (we were lucky on that one!). I point out the importance of distinguishing between natural and human-caused climate phenomena because I don't want to give deniers any excuses to keep resisting the truth that will destroy earth's habitat and threaten future life. Again, thank you for taking on the controversial topic.
Best, Grace
I am thankful for your Op-Ed piece this morning: "Harvey, the Storm that Humans Helped Cause." The media has not done enough to get the climate change message out with clarity. But I do want to suggest that we humans probably didn't cause the tropical cyclone to form; nor are we responsible for the stalling of the storm and its normal behavior of picking up moisture from the sea. We caused conditions that magnified the impact of the storm. Because the heat-holding gases we have spewed into the atmosphere cause both the heating of the ocean and an increase of water vapor in the air, the storm was fueled (intensified) by warmer water and wetter air than we had before climate change. Because the sea level is higher due to the fact that warmer water expands and the melting of land ice adds to the sea's total volume, the possibility of a more damaging surge was there (we were lucky on that one!). I point out the importance of distinguishing between natural and human-caused climate phenomena because I don't want to give deniers any excuses to keep resisting the truth that will destroy earth's habitat and threaten future life. Again, thank you for taking on the controversial topic.
Best, Grace
3
Layers of irony: Republicans continue to control Texas politics despite a changing demographic in part because of voter suppression. Republicans deny the existence of climate change and vote against measures to slow it down. Texas is a center for the fossil fuel extraction industry. Houston has no zoning so that storms are not managed well. Hmmm...I feel bad badly for the people who are suffering. But who do they have to blame? Are they not reaping what they have sown....as will all of us when it comes to our failure to lead a just and sustainable national existence?
11
Is this really the right time to wag your finger at folks? Our kids are in the middle of this crisis and the last thing they need is someone with no apparent claim to expertise self righteously say climate deniers are to blame. Please get over yourself long enough to help the millions in Texas rather than help by self-righteously blaming politics. Save that for later.
5
Right on Bill! It's time for all of us to come together.Red states,blue states,who cares! These people need our help now! To the anti everything's out there,back off for awhile!
2
Lessons are not learned from successes, but from failures. It is painful, and believe me, I feel for the desperate folks of Texas. But the time to learn from this is NOW, not a year from now when the pain has begun to fade from the national consciousness. That it got to this point is what makes it necessary to begin with. I feel truly sorry for your kids - how about getting engaged so perhaps this doesn't happen to them - and their kids - again?
1
I think that this is precisely the time to remind folks that human-caused global warming is real and causing enormous damage. And that we need to act now, both to slow down the warming and to adapt to climate changes that cannot be reversed. If not now, when? As Al Gore says in his new film, "Inconvenient Sequel," our children and grandchildren are going to ask, as the climate continues to bring terrible storms and droughts, "What were we thinking?!"
1
This is exactly right. Can you prove that cigarette caused your lung cancer? The science of climate change cannot be clearer today, yet many leaders continue to question it for political reasons. Let's stop pussy-footing around and call it what it is: A major health threat that threatens everyone, especially those in flood-prone communities and in fire-ravaged areas. The media must do a better job of talking to people on the front lines of a growing global disaster. Farmers, fishermen and flood victims are the ones who know the true price of inaction, and their stories are powerful reminders of what's at stake. Stay on it media. Your stories can change the world. My kids are counting on it.
12
A thoughtful essay deserves applause. I didn't read rash, absurd statements. It's up to Texans and other GOP politicos to get a clue. Yeah, I agree, they are seemingly pretty much dependent upon lobbying by polluters. Geezers minds must somehow be less foolish. Their progeny which survives the environmental dystopia shall be cussing nutty, unwise politics. President Trump is--imho-- devoid of environmental
ethics, and is thus shamefully making the future as unlivable as his EPA appointee can get away with trashing pollution regulations. I refuse to believe
that my fellow Americans have knowingly voted for "catastrophism," which I recall from freshman geology is apparently how scientists regard such horrors as Houston's relatively quick historic misery, whether natural or manmade or doubtlessly some of both. I don't consider myself a gung ho green because environmentalism--I'd thought--became normative circa 1970
under President Nixon & EPA boss John Gardener.
ethics, and is thus shamefully making the future as unlivable as his EPA appointee can get away with trashing pollution regulations. I refuse to believe
that my fellow Americans have knowingly voted for "catastrophism," which I recall from freshman geology is apparently how scientists regard such horrors as Houston's relatively quick historic misery, whether natural or manmade or doubtlessly some of both. I don't consider myself a gung ho green because environmentalism--I'd thought--became normative circa 1970
under President Nixon & EPA boss John Gardener.
2
There are fundamental uncertainlies regarding the relationship between TCs and climate change Mr. Leonhardt...not the "scientific reticence" you seem to prefer. For instance...adding significant heat to the mid-troposphere may actually serve to stabilize the topical atmosphere and surpass TC development and even limit intensity. Climatologists don't understand these thermodynamic/stability relationships. To them more heat=more and worse TCs. The end. You need atmospheric scientists to answer these questions and the answers are not simple.
That said...sea level is rising...temperatures are warming...and as long as everyone...include the "it's not my fault" liberals keep driving cars, heating and cooling homes and charging cell phones it is *going to get worse*. When will the discussion turn from blaming republicans for climate change to actually adapting to it? The climate isn't waiting. It is adapting to us.
That said...sea level is rising...temperatures are warming...and as long as everyone...include the "it's not my fault" liberals keep driving cars, heating and cooling homes and charging cell phones it is *going to get worse*. When will the discussion turn from blaming republicans for climate change to actually adapting to it? The climate isn't waiting. It is adapting to us.
8
No one is blaming Republicans for climate change, but the stonewalling and resistance to action seems to be coming from that direction.
Climatologists and atmospheric scientists at NOAA have been working feaverishly together to save the data the fossil fuel industry funded GOP congress has been trying to censor.
https://m.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/1028/Why-is-NOAA-withholding-climate-do...
Climatologists and atmospheric scientists at NOAA have been working feaverishly together to save the data the fossil fuel industry funded GOP congress has been trying to censor.
https://m.csmonitor.com/USA/2015/1028/Why-is-NOAA-withholding-climate-do...
1
"When will the discussion turn from blaming republicans for climate change to actually adapting to it?" Have you heard that GOP politicians were "thrilled" that Trump dumped Obama-era rule that highways be built to withstand flooding?
Did you hear that the reason Cruz vetoed the Sandy relief bill because it contained "pork" such as battening down the hatches of military installations? There is only one way to address and/or adapt to climate change: vote Republicans out of office.
Did you hear that the reason Cruz vetoed the Sandy relief bill because it contained "pork" such as battening down the hatches of military installations? There is only one way to address and/or adapt to climate change: vote Republicans out of office.
1
No one blames Republicans for climate change just for denying the science, and not wanting to do anything about it.
You correctly point out "...sea level is rising...temperatures are warming..." without mentioning that the level of C02 in the atmosphere is going through the roof, so to speak. Though I suspect that you, like some deniers, consider that a good thing.
You correctly point out "...sea level is rising...temperatures are warming..." without mentioning that the level of C02 in the atmosphere is going through the roof, so to speak. Though I suspect that you, like some deniers, consider that a good thing.
James Hansen should not have altered the figures, more than once, to make the results more convenient.
There is one fact though, no amount of ethanol will make internal combustion clean. Democrats own ethanol and it is time they admit they need to do away with it and stop the pollution it brings with it all the way down the river to the dead zone in the Gulf.
Ethanol, still a solution looking for the problem.
There is one fact though, no amount of ethanol will make internal combustion clean. Democrats own ethanol and it is time they admit they need to do away with it and stop the pollution it brings with it all the way down the river to the dead zone in the Gulf.
Ethanol, still a solution looking for the problem.
4
Hansen has been cleared multiple times of scientific bias. Pure right wing propaganda. A physicist climate skeptic did a multi-year study to try to overturn the verdict of warming and came out completely convinced of it's correctness.
But you're right about Ethanol being a bad thing. However, most Democrats have gotten beyond Ethanol. The fact of the matter is that Ethanol is still mandated because the Plains states (if your address is Lincoln, Nebraska, that means you!) have been pushing for it's persistence, merely to keep corn prices up. Note that among all Rump's posturing on climate he has not done anything to remove Ethanol requirements. That should tell you something about the issue.
By the way, are you confusing ethanol with phosphate fertilizers? The latter is what has been causing the water pollution problem.
But you're right about Ethanol being a bad thing. However, most Democrats have gotten beyond Ethanol. The fact of the matter is that Ethanol is still mandated because the Plains states (if your address is Lincoln, Nebraska, that means you!) have been pushing for it's persistence, merely to keep corn prices up. Note that among all Rump's posturing on climate he has not done anything to remove Ethanol requirements. That should tell you something about the issue.
By the way, are you confusing ethanol with phosphate fertilizers? The latter is what has been causing the water pollution problem.
1
It is a lie that James Hansen altered any figures.
1
Here in Fredericton, the weather changed in 2012. I remember this distinctly and wrote it down. That summer, for the first time in my 10 years in the city, rainfall would come in torrential downpours. Temporary floods on city streets not designed to handle such deluges became commonplace. I asked people who lived here all their lives if this was a new phenomenon. Everyone said that it was. It's not that heavy rainfalls did not happen in the past. The sheer magnitude and regularity of such rainfalls was different. This summer has been a bit more of a return to the norm, but I suspect that is a temporary reprieve. The reality of climate change has been clear in Canada for the past two decades or longer. I remember when snow-free winters became fairly common in Canadian cities that always used to have snow. And, of course, we have the melting Arctic and the effects that has on wildlife and humans. Climate change is real, it is here, and it is caused by humans. Nowhere in the world is this really debated except the US, which has taken it upon itself to obstruct international efforts to face this true existential problem.
6
Roxie oh yes, quite a few of us are blaming Republicans for climate change. Democrats are complicit of course, we all are, but Republicans have led the charge to keep fossil fuels and destroy environmental regulations. So, please speak for yourself.
I, for one, am so tired of having to pay, and pay, and pay so all these people can "live near water." Whether it is rebuilding vacation homes at the beach or repeatedly rescuing those in Houston and New Orleans, there should not be housing in flood-prone areas.
America is a huge country...it is no longer necessary to live beside water in order to ship your goods. We have trains, we have interstate highway systems, the interior of this country is just as accessible as the coasts.
Had there "never before been major storms" in any given area is still no excuse...water seeks it's own level and goes wherever it wants. Houston has had more major storms than you can count on one hand! For god's sake, move....to Indiana or Wyoming or Iowa or Pennsylvania. Stop tempting fate, chances are good you won't win!
America is a huge country...it is no longer necessary to live beside water in order to ship your goods. We have trains, we have interstate highway systems, the interior of this country is just as accessible as the coasts.
Had there "never before been major storms" in any given area is still no excuse...water seeks it's own level and goes wherever it wants. Houston has had more major storms than you can count on one hand! For god's sake, move....to Indiana or Wyoming or Iowa or Pennsylvania. Stop tempting fate, chances are good you won't win!
6
But Houston (unlike Galveston) used to not be flood prone. Only now with the 'secret sauce' of global warming is that becoming the case. Lots of places that used to be safe are no longer. Sure, we can abandon the entire Gulf Coast, much of the Atlantic Coast and some of the Pacific. But don't think that's without cost.
And we will still need ports and port cities, and most world trade is still done by ship and that won't change anytime soon.
And finally, don't think you're safe just because you're inland. Rivers can flood also. What would happen in your area with 50 inches of rain?
And we will still need ports and port cities, and most world trade is still done by ship and that won't change anytime soon.
And finally, don't think you're safe just because you're inland. Rivers can flood also. What would happen in your area with 50 inches of rain?
1
Why didn't you invite "these people" to move to the bucolic Oregon wine country where you live?
When the Glassy Winged Sharpshooter destroyed wine grapes in the Napa Valley, near where I live, the growers got federal help.
Maybe I'll complain when the sharpshooter arrives in Oregon and your precious little ecomomy gets bailed out by the my tax dollars.
When the Glassy Winged Sharpshooter destroyed wine grapes in the Napa Valley, near where I live, the growers got federal help.
Maybe I'll complain when the sharpshooter arrives in Oregon and your precious little ecomomy gets bailed out by the my tax dollars.
Here's a bi-partisan win:win. Forget the WALL and use the first $1.6 billion installment for TX and LA recovery --wall water not people. Then plug the hedge fund tax pass through and build a new Houston ad New Orleans.
4
The extra heat from global warming is like keeping gasoline and oil-soaked rags in your garage - when your house burns down it may not be because of the gasoline and rags but the fire was certainly worse because of it.
4
Interesting thing is we can transfer much of our energy to alternate non fossil. Cost is always the big issue (except for the oil, gas and coal guys where profits are the thing). We now have the technology to avoid much of the fossil fuels we use. We need the political will to do this. Finances? can spending many billions replacing damaged cities be cheaper then using alternate energy? Do the math folks.
2
Interesting that it's hitting a red state so hard. Maybe there's something to NDT's comment on science -- "It's true whether you believe it or not."
Or will we have people sometime in the future saying that Harvey never happened, just like they say there's no rising water in Miami even while they wade through it?
Or will we have people sometime in the future saying that Harvey never happened, just like they say there's no rising water in Miami even while they wade through it?
3
What I find shocking is not that ignorant people have been deceived by the oil industry, the same old ploy as for cigarettes and even some of the same "scientists", but rather that seemingly intelligent people have wilfully ignored the need to push back against the Koch brother's propaganda. The forces of oil saw long ago that this was a fight for control of the discourse. They succeeded to such a degree that the accumulated knowledge and conclusions of thousands of climate scientists are given approximately the same gravity and importance as the opinions of members of the Tea Party and bible thumpers. Someone with gravitas and influence must speak up and talk about worst case scenarios. In every other sort of disaster planning the worst that can happen is given serious consideration, for obvious reasons. But with the worst catastrophe to ever hit humanity looming ever closer, meh, not so much. Climate models don't take into account two crucial sources of methane, which traps 30 times the heat of CO2. The thawing Arctic from Alaska to Siberia and the ocean floor are leaking and they hold enough gas to heat the planet 5 or 6 degress C. Wake up homo sapiens! this is only just started. Forget about 2 degrees C. that train is under water in Houston. It's time to make a contingency for a much, much warmer future.
2
Excellent comment
CO2 is also the cause of the methane now bubbling out of the Arctic. Very large methane hydrate deposits exist below the Arctic land and adjacent ocean areas. A methane hydrate feedback loop will begin to “kick in” after a 2 C degrees (3.6 F) increase in global temperatures. Our civilization is approaching that 2 C figure. Global temperatures throughout the planet will then rise rapidly. Many scientists are telling us that as a result the feedback loop, temperatures far in excess of 4 C degrees are predicted due to a runaway increase in Methane. Over a 100-year timeframe methane is about 35 times more potent than carbon dioxide, over 20 years 84 times more potent.
David Anderson
www.InquiryAbraham.com
CO2 is also the cause of the methane now bubbling out of the Arctic. Very large methane hydrate deposits exist below the Arctic land and adjacent ocean areas. A methane hydrate feedback loop will begin to “kick in” after a 2 C degrees (3.6 F) increase in global temperatures. Our civilization is approaching that 2 C figure. Global temperatures throughout the planet will then rise rapidly. Many scientists are telling us that as a result the feedback loop, temperatures far in excess of 4 C degrees are predicted due to a runaway increase in Methane. Over a 100-year timeframe methane is about 35 times more potent than carbon dioxide, over 20 years 84 times more potent.
David Anderson
www.InquiryAbraham.com
2
I feel for the people of Texas and I'm proud my state, New York, has been providing help. We're glad to do it. The problem is this is "fake news" to a "fake President." Sorry.
1
Here is the problem of attributing this particular event to climate change: Imagine you had a biased coin, one that came up heads 60% of the time. You flip the coin once and it comes up heads. Can you claim that was due to the bias? No. Only if you flip it many times and note the preponderance of heads can you correctly attribute that outcome to the bias. So it is with extreme weather events such as Harvey. No single event can be attributed to climate change but the ensemble can. But that doesn't mean we should not vigorously try to reduce climate change because in the end it will get us all.
1
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Sinclair Lewis
This applies EXACTLY to the fossil fuel industry folks who built Houston and continue to run it. Now, in the face of nature's wrath, brought on by their profligate consumption of carbon fuels, they still refuse to admit, global warming -- and the horrific storms it brings -- can be attributed in largest share to their own actions.
This applies EXACTLY to the fossil fuel industry folks who built Houston and continue to run it. Now, in the face of nature's wrath, brought on by their profligate consumption of carbon fuels, they still refuse to admit, global warming -- and the horrific storms it brings -- can be attributed in largest share to their own actions.
5
Actually, even that is no longer true.
Today, Rex Tillerson, former Exxon Mobile CEO who has spent millions trying to debunk climate science studies (in vain) and now the GOP's Sec. of State, explicitly urged Trump to stay in the Paris accord and admitted that anthropogenic global warming has been proven to be true and is extremely dangerous.
And the current Exxon Mobile CEO was among those big business leaders who wrote Trump a letter to tell him the exact same thing.
So today, it seems like the only ones who still lie in order to keep their jobs are GOP elected officials and their propaganda machines Fox News and other right-wing fake news outlets ...
Today, Rex Tillerson, former Exxon Mobile CEO who has spent millions trying to debunk climate science studies (in vain) and now the GOP's Sec. of State, explicitly urged Trump to stay in the Paris accord and admitted that anthropogenic global warming has been proven to be true and is extremely dangerous.
And the current Exxon Mobile CEO was among those big business leaders who wrote Trump a letter to tell him the exact same thing.
So today, it seems like the only ones who still lie in order to keep their jobs are GOP elected officials and their propaganda machines Fox News and other right-wing fake news outlets ...
3
Ana Luisa, it really is still true - money talks. Exxon and Tillerson, and many other corporations and their chieftains, have tumbled to the fact that the next wave of economic growth and profit will be the development, manufacture, sale, operation and maintenance of new forms of energy production. They already are gearing up for the next wave, while at the same time making sure to milk the last tidbits of profit from soon to be obsolete fossil fuels.
Only those too short sighted or poorly positioned to profit from the next wave will steadfastly resist it. The coal industry, for example, will go the way of the buggy whip, the whale oil lamp, the Polaroid camera and the Xerox machine. And all of the Trumpian chest pounding in the world will not be able to revive it, although those who struggle like flies in ointment in a futile effort to cling to coal technology may be able to do considerable, irreparable environmental damage in exchange for a relatively miniscule short term economic return.
Only those too short sighted or poorly positioned to profit from the next wave will steadfastly resist it. The coal industry, for example, will go the way of the buggy whip, the whale oil lamp, the Polaroid camera and the Xerox machine. And all of the Trumpian chest pounding in the world will not be able to revive it, although those who struggle like flies in ointment in a futile effort to cling to coal technology may be able to do considerable, irreparable environmental damage in exchange for a relatively miniscule short term economic return.
Tillerson urged Trump to stay in the Paris accord? Sounds Faustian to me. Tillerson made his deal with the devil long ago, when he was the CEO at Exxon Mobile.
CC is the new religion of the left. David pushes biblical references with an evangelical fervor.
Storms in Houston area for over 100 years. The one in 1900 killed
some 8,000 people. CA drought 5 yrs OMG. Except for the 100 year
drought around 1100 A.D.
CC is on the level of Tarot Cards, Wee Gee Boards and Astrology.
There is no 'predictability' in CC, a must for hard sciences, not faux sciences.
Remember the ' 5 Katrina's a year in New Orleans. Didn't happen.
But there is Money to be paid in dystopia and CC. Follow the money.
Storms in Houston area for over 100 years. The one in 1900 killed
some 8,000 people. CA drought 5 yrs OMG. Except for the 100 year
drought around 1100 A.D.
CC is on the level of Tarot Cards, Wee Gee Boards and Astrology.
There is no 'predictability' in CC, a must for hard sciences, not faux sciences.
Remember the ' 5 Katrina's a year in New Orleans. Didn't happen.
But there is Money to be paid in dystopia and CC. Follow the money.
12
So therefore we should do as the Texan congressmen did after Sandy and not appropriate aid.
2
That would have been true, IF it weren't for the fact that all over the world, and for decades now, scientists of all walks of life, and all political, cultural and religious background have proven that what you're writing here is totally wrong.
Time to leave religion aside and update your info a little bit, imho ...
Because the only way to know whether something cannot be proven or refuted and as a consequence belongs to the field of religion, or has been proven or refuted and as a consequence belongs to the field of science, is to start reading some books or articles written by scientists, rather than blindly believing political pundits.
Time to leave religion aside and update your info a little bit, imho ...
Because the only way to know whether something cannot be proven or refuted and as a consequence belongs to the field of religion, or has been proven or refuted and as a consequence belongs to the field of science, is to start reading some books or articles written by scientists, rather than blindly believing political pundits.
1
In the past 60 years I've personally witnessed the reality of Climate Change.
Living on an Island will open your eye's to the reality of Climate Change. Here on Oahu, we've witnessed land returning to the sea, it started on the North Shore of Oahu and now is affecting Waikiki Beach.
This problem isn't just affecting Oahu, it's affected other Hawaiian Islands as well.
There have also been reports of Islands throughout the Pacific Ocean and around the world reporting these same effects to their Islands.
Why?
Well respected scientist have been researching this question not only here in Hawaii but across the World and will tell you that the warmer weather we're experiencing have been causing icebergs that have been frozen for millions of years are melting.
"MAN'S" dependence on fossil fuel's, like coal, oil and gas are emitting large amounts of CO2 into the environment causing what we now known as Climate Change and believe whatever you want but Climate Change is "REAL" and will continue to damage our environment and most unfortunately our World.
Living on an Island will open your eye's to the reality of Climate Change. Here on Oahu, we've witnessed land returning to the sea, it started on the North Shore of Oahu and now is affecting Waikiki Beach.
This problem isn't just affecting Oahu, it's affected other Hawaiian Islands as well.
There have also been reports of Islands throughout the Pacific Ocean and around the world reporting these same effects to their Islands.
Why?
Well respected scientist have been researching this question not only here in Hawaii but across the World and will tell you that the warmer weather we're experiencing have been causing icebergs that have been frozen for millions of years are melting.
"MAN'S" dependence on fossil fuel's, like coal, oil and gas are emitting large amounts of CO2 into the environment causing what we now known as Climate Change and believe whatever you want but Climate Change is "REAL" and will continue to damage our environment and most unfortunately our World.
1
Nothing biblical about it.
2
"No individual storm can be definitively blamed on climate change. It’s true, too. Some version of Harvey probably would have happened without climate change, and we’ll never know the hypothetical truth.
But it’s time to shed some of the fussy over-precision about the relationship between climate change and weather."
So you want to do away with a reliance on science? Isn't that precisely what so many folks claim the right does? How is this different?
But it’s time to shed some of the fussy over-precision about the relationship between climate change and weather."
So you want to do away with a reliance on science? Isn't that precisely what so many folks claim the right does? How is this different?
1
Anyone familiar with the projections of scientists about how climate change will play out has been expecting an increase in storms like Sandy and Harvey, far more record heat waves than cold snaps, sea-level rise, the migration of insects and diseases toward the poles, worsening fire "seasons" (now nearly year-round in California), melting of the (now-misnamed) permafrost, and so on. Read for yourself: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report.
In my view, trying to attribute individual events to climate change is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: this increase in unprecedented events is playing out as the science indicated it would.
Sadly, the GOP behaves like a subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry, denying the science, taking scientific information off government websites, abandoning international agreements.
President Obama relied on internationally recognized scientists and Nobel laureates to advise him. Trump (who reportedly thinks the human body has a finite amount of energy to expend in a lifetime, so he avoids exercise) has no science adviser, and has handed the departments of State, Energy, and the EPA to the fossil fuel industry. Way to make America great again.
In my view, trying to attribute individual events to climate change is looking through the wrong end of the telescope: this increase in unprecedented events is playing out as the science indicated it would.
Sadly, the GOP behaves like a subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry, denying the science, taking scientific information off government websites, abandoning international agreements.
President Obama relied on internationally recognized scientists and Nobel laureates to advise him. Trump (who reportedly thinks the human body has a finite amount of energy to expend in a lifetime, so he avoids exercise) has no science adviser, and has handed the departments of State, Energy, and the EPA to the fossil fuel industry. Way to make America great again.
2
lol, it's all about BIG BUSINESS but even more importantly to these people, BIG MONEY ...
It makes no sense, whatsoever, for flood damage to be excluded from homeowner's insurance.
What does it matter to the homeowner what the proximate source of his damage is? The point is, the damage has occurred through no fault of the homeowners, and the homeowner needs the damage repaired.
I get that including flood damage in policies would raise the cost of those policies, but so what? By excluding flood coverage, you are subjecting people to risk they tried to insure against and you make them suffer the consequences of our political dysfunction (ask any Superstorm Sandy victim). You also discourage homeowners from getting good insurance in the first place, since their claims will depend upon slings and arrows of misfortune out of their control.
If the cost of comprehensive homeowners insurance is too expensive in flood-prone areas as a result, people will stop building in flood-prone areas. At some point, you need to either bite the bullet on this or we can get comfortable with taxpayer-funded public flood insurance.
What does it matter to the homeowner what the proximate source of his damage is? The point is, the damage has occurred through no fault of the homeowners, and the homeowner needs the damage repaired.
I get that including flood damage in policies would raise the cost of those policies, but so what? By excluding flood coverage, you are subjecting people to risk they tried to insure against and you make them suffer the consequences of our political dysfunction (ask any Superstorm Sandy victim). You also discourage homeowners from getting good insurance in the first place, since their claims will depend upon slings and arrows of misfortune out of their control.
If the cost of comprehensive homeowners insurance is too expensive in flood-prone areas as a result, people will stop building in flood-prone areas. At some point, you need to either bite the bullet on this or we can get comfortable with taxpayer-funded public flood insurance.
3
WE ARE THE CAUSE OF CLIMATE CHANGE- LET’S BE THE SOLUTION
Something is awfully wrong with our world, our planet. The longer we keep denying this, the worst it will be for all. Climate change is real and we are the cause, producing more greenhouse gases than ever before, implementing practices that have changed the natural greenhouse effect. The burning of fossil fuel, inappropriate agricultural practices, to name a couple, and simply disrespecting the delicate balance in nature have put us where we are today. Our glaciers are melting. Wildlife species are becoming extinct. Our oceans are warmer. Our weather patterns are shifting and causing catastrophic storms. Why can’t we all see this? We need to put our personal needs aside and focus on the planet’s well being or there won’t be a planet to live in. We can all get onboard and work hard to contribute to research, advance technology, and incorporate earth friendly habits in our daily lives. We must not pass up the opportunity to educate whenever possible. Let’s help bring forth awareness and support the politicians that still have a heart left to save our planet. We can have a fighting chance if we are all on the same page. Our other option: we can sit here and watch it all disappear. Nature doesn’t discriminate. It will balance itself, and it won’t ask our permission.
LET’S BE THE CHANGE AND SAVE US ALL!
Something is awfully wrong with our world, our planet. The longer we keep denying this, the worst it will be for all. Climate change is real and we are the cause, producing more greenhouse gases than ever before, implementing practices that have changed the natural greenhouse effect. The burning of fossil fuel, inappropriate agricultural practices, to name a couple, and simply disrespecting the delicate balance in nature have put us where we are today. Our glaciers are melting. Wildlife species are becoming extinct. Our oceans are warmer. Our weather patterns are shifting and causing catastrophic storms. Why can’t we all see this? We need to put our personal needs aside and focus on the planet’s well being or there won’t be a planet to live in. We can all get onboard and work hard to contribute to research, advance technology, and incorporate earth friendly habits in our daily lives. We must not pass up the opportunity to educate whenever possible. Let’s help bring forth awareness and support the politicians that still have a heart left to save our planet. We can have a fighting chance if we are all on the same page. Our other option: we can sit here and watch it all disappear. Nature doesn’t discriminate. It will balance itself, and it won’t ask our permission.
LET’S BE THE CHANGE AND SAVE US ALL!
3
Far more blame, Mr. Leonhardt, goes to the men and women who believe that human life is immune to the forces of nature.
This is no better reflected in the deliberate evisceration of the marshes and deltas around urban centers and the hardening of the banks of the rivers and streams that flow into and through them.
Water, when its considerable volume is constrained to narrow, unnatural channels, has no place to go but up. And "up" means flooding the lower-lying areas that replaces those very marshes and deltas that protected inhabited areas.
And as for climate change being an important factor in the strength of hurricanes and other storms?
Well, cyclonic weather systems have been around for many millennia, and man has only been systematically recording their existence for about 150 years and their intensities and tracks for only about 75 years.
We have no data on the strengths of these storms, over even their existence, that establishes that today's storms are more severe than those in the past. And to contend that we do is as disingenuous as it gets.
Save the hyperbole, Mr. Leonhardt, for issues about which you have actual evidence. You will come across as less ideologically driven and political in your actions.
This is no better reflected in the deliberate evisceration of the marshes and deltas around urban centers and the hardening of the banks of the rivers and streams that flow into and through them.
Water, when its considerable volume is constrained to narrow, unnatural channels, has no place to go but up. And "up" means flooding the lower-lying areas that replaces those very marshes and deltas that protected inhabited areas.
And as for climate change being an important factor in the strength of hurricanes and other storms?
Well, cyclonic weather systems have been around for many millennia, and man has only been systematically recording their existence for about 150 years and their intensities and tracks for only about 75 years.
We have no data on the strengths of these storms, over even their existence, that establishes that today's storms are more severe than those in the past. And to contend that we do is as disingenuous as it gets.
Save the hyperbole, Mr. Leonhardt, for issues about which you have actual evidence. You will come across as less ideologically driven and political in your actions.
2
I totally agree with your assessment of the situation in Texas. It is both heartbreaking and uplifting. I have many friends there who have suffered damages. My wishes go out o them all.
But your rhetoric...
The climate is changing. Linking a single storm to climate change is misleading, unless you're also going to credit the lack of storms for the past 8 years on climate change as well. There were worse storms prior to 1950 as well.
In the meantime, our ability to cope with these events along with our overall standard of living has improved immeasurably, due, to a large extent, on the hydrocarbons we burn, which give us the energy needed to improve our lives.
Regardless of the cause of climate change, given that it is occurring, our econo-political response is a very important consideration. Reducing carbon emissions does nothing at all to help for many many years, and at tremendous cost. We first should be looking towards hardening our infrastructure.
And really, I don't care if this is an opinion page, but leave out the biblical proportions stuff, or I will talk about dogs and cats living together.
But your rhetoric...
The climate is changing. Linking a single storm to climate change is misleading, unless you're also going to credit the lack of storms for the past 8 years on climate change as well. There were worse storms prior to 1950 as well.
In the meantime, our ability to cope with these events along with our overall standard of living has improved immeasurably, due, to a large extent, on the hydrocarbons we burn, which give us the energy needed to improve our lives.
Regardless of the cause of climate change, given that it is occurring, our econo-political response is a very important consideration. Reducing carbon emissions does nothing at all to help for many many years, and at tremendous cost. We first should be looking towards hardening our infrastructure.
And really, I don't care if this is an opinion page, but leave out the biblical proportions stuff, or I will talk about dogs and cats living together.
Whilst climate change is one of the causes of the disaster that is unfolding in front of us in Texas at the moment, there is another, under-reported ill effect as the result of human activity (or, actually, inactivity by means of laissez-faire): in the name of freedom, by reducing government regulations and laws to a minimum, the wetlands along the Gulf Coast and around Houston have been paved over with concrete and with all kinds of residential and commercial structures, so that water has nowhere to run off. It is this kind of unfettered, anti-government, rabid capitalism that now reveals itself as what it truly is: Organized Irresponsibility. Ideology trumps reality, time and again. Yes, we need to change our ways of how we live if we want a future for the generations who come after us. This means that our survival depends in no small part on curbing the run-amok bankrupto-clepto-capitalism which falsely promises unlimited freedom - its wake is waste and destruction. In other words: Replace Organized Irresponsibility with Organized Responsibility on all levels, from the single citizen to every community, every business, every corporation, all the way up to government (local, state, federal). The foolish quest for "unlimited personal freedom" has been disrupted by Nature, in the form of Harvey. As things are, there will be more costly lessons in store for us as long we equate freedom with irresponsibility. " 'Après nous, le déluge' ("After us, the flood")..... Really?
8
Denial of climate change isn't going to make a bit of difference to the suffering resulting from it. It's happening now, not in some distant future and it will get worse.
6
Prez Bush(father)called Al Gore"Ozone Man",his sun did not believe in science and climate change either;and it seems the denial factor for republicans is not dying.
4
hate to inject data into an otherwise fervent meeting of the church of climate alarmism. But I just did some research. If you look at the max temps of all the US climate divisions that are are primarily on the gulf, you'll find something amazing. Since 1895 -- 2016 the max temps for the four months that are the primary hurricane months (june,july,aug,sep) -- are either flat or are declining. I've attached the data for Texas Climate Div 8 (the one which includes Houston) but you'll see the same thing for Texas div 10; Louisiana 7-9, Mississippi 10 and Florida 1. More important the temps vary year to year -- in the case of Texas Div 8, temps move as much as 4 degrees from year to year.
Now, while this isn't a measure of gulf temps, it seems a reasonable proxy as this represents roughly half the land mass that faces the gulf. Now I'll admit the possibility that maybe the gulf states actually have flat or declining max temps but the gulf is somehow getting hotter, but that seems like a stretch.
And in case you're wondering, I only used the Florida western panhandle because the rest of the Florida climate divs face both the gulf and atlantic.
But let's not let facts or data stop the service.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/41/8/tmax/4/9/1895-2017?bas...
Now, while this isn't a measure of gulf temps, it seems a reasonable proxy as this represents roughly half the land mass that faces the gulf. Now I'll admit the possibility that maybe the gulf states actually have flat or declining max temps but the gulf is somehow getting hotter, but that seems like a stretch.
And in case you're wondering, I only used the Florida western panhandle because the rest of the Florida climate divs face both the gulf and atlantic.
But let's not let facts or data stop the service.
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/us/41/8/tmax/4/9/1895-2017?bas...
1
Ralphie, not sure about your data points but the overall scientific consensus is that global warming will make hurricanes more severe. They predicted Harvey. It's time to listen to the experts instead of cherry-picking fringe data. If you want to limit the harm, that is.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weat...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weat...
4
Sorry Sherry. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Yes, there will be hurricanes in the future. If in 2013 you predicted that in the future there would be stronger hurricanes you might be right. Or wrong. Harvey is not proof either way.
1
Way too early to draw conclusion from this "opinion" piece. Just read earlier article that named several climate change scientists that agree climate change is happening and they indicated that it would take months to study all factors before concluding what this opinion write has. Some just can't wait to make unconfirmed conclusions--wait for facts and good analysis--too much grandstanding!!
2
Joe -- as you are aware, Leonhardt is a journalist, not a scientist and facts are things to him that can be massaged, cherry picked, or ignored. He apparently has done no research, has no grasp of data or statistics. But then again, most of the commentariat here are from the church of climate alarmism and facts are irrelevant if they interfere with the narrative. The sad thing is that we've had a 12 year hiatus in major hurricanes for the contiguous US but 1 hurricane that breaks that huge drought is suddenly evidence for climate change? Me no get the logic.
1
The real tragedy is not that humans have aggravated the problem, it is that we are now at the point where we cannot no longer undo what has been done. Here in Canada our governments think that taxing carbon emission is the solution. The revenue derived from carbon taxes is not, however, spent on any programs to reduce emissions, but rather it does int general revenues. I expect the next great extinction will include homo sapiens who had proven not very sapiens after all.
67
Canada and Siberia are among the regions that might benefit from global warming.
Global warming or not, Houston was unprepared for massive flooding, and did not see the need to take into account when they built up the city.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/houston-sitting-duck-hurricanes/
Apparently, it's OK for cities/states to behave irresponsibly, fail to budget and plan for emergencies and then expect the federal gov't to help clean up the mess. Talk about moral hazard.
Republicans in Congress justify their failure to act on matters affecting their constitutent by suggesting that the states can do a better job of addressing their own needs. Clearly, that was not the case in terms of being prepared for flooding.
Instead of acknowledging the limits of cities and states willingness and ability to do what is needed on a whole host of issues (infrastructure, emergency preparedness, healthcare coverage, environmental protection), Trump is actually looking to encourage even more irresponsibility by undoing an executive the order by Obama requiring future construction to plan for rising sea levels and the consequences of global warming. Pathetic.
Republicans are slowly trying to turn us into a third world country like our neighbors to the south. We have been coasting on the successes of progressive legislation enacted from Lincoln to Nixon, which gave us civil rights, created a safety net, and invested in infrastructure.
For the past 30+ years we have worshiped at the altar of corporatism with dire results.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/houston-sitting-duck-hurricanes/
Apparently, it's OK for cities/states to behave irresponsibly, fail to budget and plan for emergencies and then expect the federal gov't to help clean up the mess. Talk about moral hazard.
Republicans in Congress justify their failure to act on matters affecting their constitutent by suggesting that the states can do a better job of addressing their own needs. Clearly, that was not the case in terms of being prepared for flooding.
Instead of acknowledging the limits of cities and states willingness and ability to do what is needed on a whole host of issues (infrastructure, emergency preparedness, healthcare coverage, environmental protection), Trump is actually looking to encourage even more irresponsibility by undoing an executive the order by Obama requiring future construction to plan for rising sea levels and the consequences of global warming. Pathetic.
Republicans are slowly trying to turn us into a third world country like our neighbors to the south. We have been coasting on the successes of progressive legislation enacted from Lincoln to Nixon, which gave us civil rights, created a safety net, and invested in infrastructure.
For the past 30+ years we have worshiped at the altar of corporatism with dire results.
8
And, lest we forget, Exxon-Mobil's own scientists declared climate change was caused by burning fossil fuel and the corporation covered it up, only to be uncovered by investigative reporting this month. What hath man wrought?
9
To be sure, climate change is real and, to be certain, Humans have been contributing to climate change for some time. My great concern is the focus of the discussion. I am sorry but the issue is a great deal more complicated than simply the burning of fossil fuels. For instance, the industrial revolution began around 1800 - which roughly corresponds to the beginning of reliable recordkeeping.
In 1800, the world population was one billion people. Today, the world population is in the neighborhood of seven and half billion people. As our populations increase, sustaining those populations lead to the extinction of many other predators - from many environments in which they were once dominant.
We now fully understand that the industrialized world is at Zero-Population-Growth - a direct result of the education of the industrialized world. So, what do we do? We neglect education in the developing world. We deliver medical aid (and rightfully so) to those developing parts of the world but commit no energy to educating that part of the world about population control.
Our spiritual leaders (of all faiths) encourage over-population without regards to the well-being of those already living in parts of the world that cannot sustain their current populations.
Even if all of the targets set by the Paris Accords are met, experts are telling us that it won't be enough. Who among our world leaders has the courage to lead us to real solutions to this very complex problem?
In 1800, the world population was one billion people. Today, the world population is in the neighborhood of seven and half billion people. As our populations increase, sustaining those populations lead to the extinction of many other predators - from many environments in which they were once dominant.
We now fully understand that the industrialized world is at Zero-Population-Growth - a direct result of the education of the industrialized world. So, what do we do? We neglect education in the developing world. We deliver medical aid (and rightfully so) to those developing parts of the world but commit no energy to educating that part of the world about population control.
Our spiritual leaders (of all faiths) encourage over-population without regards to the well-being of those already living in parts of the world that cannot sustain their current populations.
Even if all of the targets set by the Paris Accords are met, experts are telling us that it won't be enough. Who among our world leaders has the courage to lead us to real solutions to this very complex problem?
5
There is little we can do about population growth over the next few decades, the babies who will be adults in 2030 have already beeb born. We know on current trends that the population will peak by the end of the century.
A focus on population growth is a distraction from what we can do now to reduce CO2 emissions. We already have the technology in place to dramatically reduce emissions well below those required by Paris Accords and which would lead to job creation. We need to dramatically reduce our emissions to make room for developing countries.
We also need to include the impact of climate change when we plan infrastructure. Harvey may have been unprecedented but it was certainly not unexpected. Know-nothings in Congress are destroying the very fabric of the Republic by their failure to integrate scientific findings into the political process. We need dramatic change now, our grandchildren will not forgive us for this level of wilful stupidity.
A focus on population growth is a distraction from what we can do now to reduce CO2 emissions. We already have the technology in place to dramatically reduce emissions well below those required by Paris Accords and which would lead to job creation. We need to dramatically reduce our emissions to make room for developing countries.
We also need to include the impact of climate change when we plan infrastructure. Harvey may have been unprecedented but it was certainly not unexpected. Know-nothings in Congress are destroying the very fabric of the Republic by their failure to integrate scientific findings into the political process. We need dramatic change now, our grandchildren will not forgive us for this level of wilful stupidity.
3
John, great comment. I totally agree; population control is a distraction from the critical tasks we must do right now, i.e. slow carbon pollution and mitigate potential damage. Let's keep on pushing back on that one.
The global warming denialists are only marginally smarter than frogs that you can boil to death in a pot they could easily hop out of, so long as you increase the temperature gradually. The only difference, so long as they maintain a majority, we’re in the pot with them, and there’s no place to jump to. Actually, that’s a bit unfair--to frogs. The story about heating the pot is a myth. Global warming, on the other hand, is closely correlated with rising CO2 concentrations. Correlation does not prove causation, but the denialists have yet to offer a credible alternative hypothesis.
5
The amount of rain falling on the Texas coast has caused a catastrophe of Biblical proportions, a tragedy for millions of our fellow citizens. There are horrible ironies here, from the area's economic dependence on the oil industry, through the industry's 40 years of climate change denial in spite of its own research, to the current scientist's predictions that global warming, if unaddressed, will permanently inundate that coast. Imagine how it might be different if the oil companies had taken the data as a clarion call to position themselves for the future.
6
You are correct, of course, but I am just waiting for the gymnastics of the deniers as they try to explain away reality. In case you had not noticed, facts do not count for much these days.
4
The frequency of hurricanes during the last ten years has declined to the lowest level in recent history, evidence that global warming leads to fewer storms, if as they contend global warming is occurring.
The massive flooding in Houston is obviously exacerbated by human activity that has nothing to do with CO2. Paving over ground and making it impervious to rain means that in the flat geology of Houston the water has no where to go but to overwhelmed streams, drainage ditches and rivers. High population sucking water out of aquifers that rainwater is not able to drain down to causes subsidence; when the ground sinks, more of the land is vulnerable to flooding and erosion accelerates at the edges.
Flooding issues are addressable by better technical understanding and land use policies. Reducing the use of fossil fuels is not among the changes Houstonians need to make.
Too bad Democrats want to use every weather event to raise taxes, despite the fact that the Chinese are on track to contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere during the years 2016-2030 than mankind has added since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Obama's "plan" burdens the American economy with $0.5 trillion per year in annual costs by the year 2030, reduces the hypothetical worldwide temperature by 0.1 degree. The UN scientists assert that giving $100 billion per year to the autocratic leaders of the third world will reduce global warming.
We need to spend out money on adaptation, not CO2.
The massive flooding in Houston is obviously exacerbated by human activity that has nothing to do with CO2. Paving over ground and making it impervious to rain means that in the flat geology of Houston the water has no where to go but to overwhelmed streams, drainage ditches and rivers. High population sucking water out of aquifers that rainwater is not able to drain down to causes subsidence; when the ground sinks, more of the land is vulnerable to flooding and erosion accelerates at the edges.
Flooding issues are addressable by better technical understanding and land use policies. Reducing the use of fossil fuels is not among the changes Houstonians need to make.
Too bad Democrats want to use every weather event to raise taxes, despite the fact that the Chinese are on track to contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere during the years 2016-2030 than mankind has added since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Obama's "plan" burdens the American economy with $0.5 trillion per year in annual costs by the year 2030, reduces the hypothetical worldwide temperature by 0.1 degree. The UN scientists assert that giving $100 billion per year to the autocratic leaders of the third world will reduce global warming.
We need to spend out money on adaptation, not CO2.
3
ebmem: Global warming is not leading to increase in the number of storms, it is increasing their SEVERITY. This has been the overwhelming scientific consensus for decades, regardless of Fox New's airtime to 70% of denialists. The GOP denying science and doing nothing about global warming, compared to smart and prudent Democrats like Obama trying both to curb pollution and enact regulations to adapt to global warming is why we have police officers drowning in their cars in Houston.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weat...
https://www.carbonbrief.org/what-the-ipcc-report-says-about-extreme-weat...
There's only one problem: as soon as you do some fact-checking, most of what you repeat here seems to have been proven false. Some examples:
1. Trump told us the Paris accord would cost $2.5 trillion over a 10-year period. He was referring to a Heritage Foundation here. BUT ... that study shows that it would be $2.5 trillion over ... 20 years. That means an annual cost of 0.016 trillion, rather than the $0.5 trillion you mention. With an annual GDP of $18 trillion, that's less than 0.01% ... in other words: insignificant, especially when you take the costs of doing nothing into account (hurricane Sandy: $60 billion, Katrina: $100 billion, etc.).
And that's in the case that ALL CO2 reduction would be done through carbon taxes, and not through a cap & trade system for instance (whereas cap & trade already exists ...), which would be even cheaper.
And Trump said (you seem to have a difficulty remembering his (unfortunately false) numbers ... ?) that the Paris accord would reduce global temperatures by 0.2 degrees, by 2100 (not 0.1 degrees, as you write).
Is that true? Yes. What does it mean? That AS the Paris Accord stipulates, in order to keep temperature increases below the critical 2 degrees by 2100, we need the Paris accord until 2030, and then NEW accords for the following decades, you see? Pulling out now is like refusing to take your medicine on day one because if you ONLY take it one day, you'll be dead in a month, whereas is you take it 30 days, you'll survive ...
1. Trump told us the Paris accord would cost $2.5 trillion over a 10-year period. He was referring to a Heritage Foundation here. BUT ... that study shows that it would be $2.5 trillion over ... 20 years. That means an annual cost of 0.016 trillion, rather than the $0.5 trillion you mention. With an annual GDP of $18 trillion, that's less than 0.01% ... in other words: insignificant, especially when you take the costs of doing nothing into account (hurricane Sandy: $60 billion, Katrina: $100 billion, etc.).
And that's in the case that ALL CO2 reduction would be done through carbon taxes, and not through a cap & trade system for instance (whereas cap & trade already exists ...), which would be even cheaper.
And Trump said (you seem to have a difficulty remembering his (unfortunately false) numbers ... ?) that the Paris accord would reduce global temperatures by 0.2 degrees, by 2100 (not 0.1 degrees, as you write).
Is that true? Yes. What does it mean? That AS the Paris Accord stipulates, in order to keep temperature increases below the critical 2 degrees by 2100, we need the Paris accord until 2030, and then NEW accords for the following decades, you see? Pulling out now is like refusing to take your medicine on day one because if you ONLY take it one day, you'll be dead in a month, whereas is you take it 30 days, you'll survive ...
There are reputable climate models that indicate that global warming may lead to fewer landfalling hurricanes but that those that do make landfall will produce more precipitation.
It is not an either or choice, we are rich enough to spend on both CO2 reduction and enhanced flood control infrastructure. Both likely would increase economic growth. We need to reject the voodoo economics of Congress and the right.
It is not an either or choice, we are rich enough to spend on both CO2 reduction and enhanced flood control infrastructure. Both likely would increase economic growth. We need to reject the voodoo economics of Congress and the right.
Houston knew that this was coming, and has known for decades. The Texas Tribune and ProPublica ran an Edward R. Murrow award-winning series last March, "Hell and High Water.," which described in excruciating detail the increasingly awful threats. It also described the procrastinating and self-serving response of both Houston and the state of Texas to the certainty that such a "500-year flood" was going to hit this city. https://www.propublica.org/article/hell-and-high-water-text
There have been several proposals from the scientific and engineering communities. Instead of action, scientists, local officials and politicians have argued and pointed fingers at one another. It has only been in the past two years that studies have even begun on how best to proceed.
Now the country's taxpayers and insurers face an immediate $40 billion disaster. The US economy will be staggering for months. This is what happens when a state turns its government over to the service of corporate business, rather than the people's interests. Houstonites were powerless to change policy, and are powerless to escape its consequences. One such horrible consequence may be that the Texas GOP will use this crisis as an opportunity to suppress voting even further.
Citizens must demand that their Federal and state governments immediately act to protect them from the coming climate-change disasters. They are inevitable.
There have been several proposals from the scientific and engineering communities. Instead of action, scientists, local officials and politicians have argued and pointed fingers at one another. It has only been in the past two years that studies have even begun on how best to proceed.
Now the country's taxpayers and insurers face an immediate $40 billion disaster. The US economy will be staggering for months. This is what happens when a state turns its government over to the service of corporate business, rather than the people's interests. Houstonites were powerless to change policy, and are powerless to escape its consequences. One such horrible consequence may be that the Texas GOP will use this crisis as an opportunity to suppress voting even further.
Citizens must demand that their Federal and state governments immediately act to protect them from the coming climate-change disasters. They are inevitable.
4
To: Mr. David Leonhardt:
Re your comments about climate change and human activity.
The EPA on its website has long identified human activity, specifically our heavy use of fossil fuels, as a major cause of global warming, and the resultant climate change, which includes both prolonged drought (which has been happening here in the PNW), heavier rainfall, more violent tornadoes and hurricanes, and other not-the-usual area specific weather patterns.
But many people refuse to believe that climate change is actually occurring, and most certainly do not take personal responsibility for recognizing how their personal choices (i.e, driving a car to and from home to work each and every day, packing up freeways and arterials) contribute to global warming.
So the issue, from my POV, is not whether humans are a major contributing factor to global warming and climate change, but why so many people refuse to acknowledge hos their personal choices (to drive or to use public transportation) affect climate. Part of this is an unwillingness to make personal changes that are costly, time-consuming for the common good and general welfare. Possibly the long standing emphasis on individualism is a contributing attitudinal issue that prevents self examination and self restraint in pursuit of personal goals.
Re your comments about climate change and human activity.
The EPA on its website has long identified human activity, specifically our heavy use of fossil fuels, as a major cause of global warming, and the resultant climate change, which includes both prolonged drought (which has been happening here in the PNW), heavier rainfall, more violent tornadoes and hurricanes, and other not-the-usual area specific weather patterns.
But many people refuse to believe that climate change is actually occurring, and most certainly do not take personal responsibility for recognizing how their personal choices (i.e, driving a car to and from home to work each and every day, packing up freeways and arterials) contribute to global warming.
So the issue, from my POV, is not whether humans are a major contributing factor to global warming and climate change, but why so many people refuse to acknowledge hos their personal choices (to drive or to use public transportation) affect climate. Part of this is an unwillingness to make personal changes that are costly, time-consuming for the common good and general welfare. Possibly the long standing emphasis on individualism is a contributing attitudinal issue that prevents self examination and self restraint in pursuit of personal goals.
4
You misread the reasoning of those that you claim are deniers of climate science.
We do not deny the observations...We deny the assessments of cause and the degree to which humans are the driving factor in the change.
Those assessments are based on the premises that scientists know all that they "need" to know to draw their conclusions.
I and millions of others suggest that while they are drawing conclusions based on what they see, what they "see" is far too limited a perspective to go make a truly informed opinion.
There are many forces that go into direction both our weather and our climate, and and overwhelming number of those forces are either unknown or have been subject to only limited study.
Again, it is the hubris of man...particularly of a politically motivated man...that suggests that man is smarter and more capable of nature, and is therefore able to be immune from its variety.
We do not deny the observations...We deny the assessments of cause and the degree to which humans are the driving factor in the change.
Those assessments are based on the premises that scientists know all that they "need" to know to draw their conclusions.
I and millions of others suggest that while they are drawing conclusions based on what they see, what they "see" is far too limited a perspective to go make a truly informed opinion.
There are many forces that go into direction both our weather and our climate, and and overwhelming number of those forces are either unknown or have been subject to only limited study.
Again, it is the hubris of man...particularly of a politically motivated man...that suggests that man is smarter and more capable of nature, and is therefore able to be immune from its variety.
We've got to get serious about pumping particulates into the stratosphere.
It will happen. At some point, when trillions in coastal infrastructure is imperiled, economies face devastation, and mass migrations looms. It won't cost much, so many countries could try. They may have to, since publics won't sit idly, watching leaders diddle while their nations literally go down the drain.
Harvey is harbinger, as Leonhardt notes. Imagine if this happens again next year. What if a big chunk of Antarctic ice moves to break off, predictably raising sea levels 12 inches?
Because it's almost inevitable that when this happens, publics and politics will turn to artificial cooling, of which stratospheric particles, perhaps sulfur, are most readily feasible.
Do we want individual countries acting independently, Trump-like, on this? Do we want scientific research on mitigating side-effects? Do we need to assess different methods?
Now is the time for international agreements and public debate. Don't be a denier.
It will happen. At some point, when trillions in coastal infrastructure is imperiled, economies face devastation, and mass migrations looms. It won't cost much, so many countries could try. They may have to, since publics won't sit idly, watching leaders diddle while their nations literally go down the drain.
Harvey is harbinger, as Leonhardt notes. Imagine if this happens again next year. What if a big chunk of Antarctic ice moves to break off, predictably raising sea levels 12 inches?
Because it's almost inevitable that when this happens, publics and politics will turn to artificial cooling, of which stratospheric particles, perhaps sulfur, are most readily feasible.
Do we want individual countries acting independently, Trump-like, on this? Do we want scientific research on mitigating side-effects? Do we need to assess different methods?
Now is the time for international agreements and public debate. Don't be a denier.
1
Tragically, Mr. Leonhardt, what are the realistic odds that the regressive, entrenched political power structure in Austin will accept and act upon the analysis presented in your honest, compelling column. 10 to 1? 30 to 1? 100 to 1? Talk about something that's really sad. They will, however, love to get their hands on more of that potent military hardware from law and order Sessions!
3
Houston is yet another example of the devastating effect global warming has had on the Gulf Coast states. Last year floods of biblical proportion hit Baton Rouge and surrounding parishes, also in the month of August. Baton Rouge received about three feet of rain in three days. And Baton Rouge is already getting rain from Harvey. Today is the 12th anniversary of Katrina making landfall in Mississippi and New Orleans. What criteria does our government have to have to agree that global warming is real?
1
You likely weren't around, clayb, before the Army Corps of Engineers began their attempts to control the Mississippi.
If you thing the floods of last year were biblical in proportions, I would hate to think of the adverb you might use to describe those yearly floodings of that great river.
The Mississippi "flood plain" is called that for the simple reason that, when the Mississippi draws off the rains and snows to the point where it overflows its banks, those portions of the surrounding land get...well...er...flooded.
Let's not allow the politics of the issue of flooding to overshadow the realities of precipitation and drainage.
If you thing the floods of last year were biblical in proportions, I would hate to think of the adverb you might use to describe those yearly floodings of that great river.
The Mississippi "flood plain" is called that for the simple reason that, when the Mississippi draws off the rains and snows to the point where it overflows its banks, those portions of the surrounding land get...well...er...flooded.
Let's not allow the politics of the issue of flooding to overshadow the realities of precipitation and drainage.
The term biblical came from descriptions in the newspapers and on television. I am quite aware of the attempts to control the Mississippi, having had family living in Baton Rouge for thirty-five years. My brother is the political editor for the Advocate and my sister-in-law is the anchor for the CBS affiliate. She spent 18 hours a day on the air during Baton Rouge's crisis. I know whereof I speak.
Three feet of rain in three days is not normal and has nothing to do with the Army Corps of Engineers attempts to control the flood plain. Opening the Atchafalya Floodway would not have helped. The rivers that flooded Baton Rouge were the Amite and Comite rivers. A year later there are still over one thousand families without homes.
Three feet of rain in three days is not normal and has nothing to do with the Army Corps of Engineers attempts to control the flood plain. Opening the Atchafalya Floodway would not have helped. The rivers that flooded Baton Rouge were the Amite and Comite rivers. A year later there are still over one thousand families without homes.
The devastation in Houston is obviously a result of climate change. There is absolutely no doubt whatever about it, and it is way long past time for our media pundits to start naming names.
Our most visible climate change deniers, ie. liars, include Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who as head of Exxon Mobile paid "scientists" to lie about global warming, and Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt, who wants the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and cut his agency's budget by 31%
Global warming threatens tp extinguish all life on Planet Earth, and it is long past time for mankind to respond. There has never been a genocidal crime of this scope, and it is regretible, to say the least, that our
Our most visible climate change deniers, ie. liars, include Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who as head of Exxon Mobile paid "scientists" to lie about global warming, and Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt, who wants the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement and cut his agency's budget by 31%
Global warming threatens tp extinguish all life on Planet Earth, and it is long past time for mankind to respond. There has never been a genocidal crime of this scope, and it is regretible, to say the least, that our
1
Station 42019 is a small yellow NOAA buoy tethered out in the Western Gulf 60 nautical miles south of Freeport, Texas. It measures and records climate data. Anyone can see a picture of it and the data it records by going onto the NOAA web site and entering "station_page.php?station=42019". Last night at midnight it showed a water temperature of 80.8-degF. Its July and August water temperatures are the highest of the year. If you sample its recorded data over the years, you will see the highs are always in July and August. If you trace Gulf water temperature back to the beginning of all records you will see a degree or two increase over the years. This is global warming. Warm surface water fuels storms like HARVEY. It also supplies the water carried by the storm. Many other conditions must come together for a storm like this, but warmer surface water ALWAYS contributes to the severity, frequency, and rainfall of such storms. This part is hard science. You can see it for yourself by searching these, and other climate data. For you business types, this is the bottom line: Expect more HARVEYs.
3
How much or that temperature change as to do with the salinity of the water that is now cascading from the Mississippi that used to be spread over great acreages of agricultural lands existing and depending on the annual floods to produce crops for survival and commerce?
A great deal of that water that flooded lands adjacent to that great river were absorbed into the ground water and aquifers from which man often drew his drinking water.
Yes, man has been partly responsible for the disasters that has befallen him in time of hurricanes and floods, but the responsibility has as much, if not more, to do with what "man" has done to the lands to alter the normal course of nature than in what he has done to the atmosphere...
And the damages incurred are a lot more and a lot more real since "man" continues to think that he can do better than nature in determining the future of our world.
THAT is the height of arrogance.
A great deal of that water that flooded lands adjacent to that great river were absorbed into the ground water and aquifers from which man often drew his drinking water.
Yes, man has been partly responsible for the disasters that has befallen him in time of hurricanes and floods, but the responsibility has as much, if not more, to do with what "man" has done to the lands to alter the normal course of nature than in what he has done to the atmosphere...
And the damages incurred are a lot more and a lot more real since "man" continues to think that he can do better than nature in determining the future of our world.
THAT is the height of arrogance.
As long as we have a president who for two years now on the national stage has said that climate change is a hoax, nothing significant with change. Improvement can only slowly begin with a new president. And all you have to do is look back one president: to the one who had climate change information readily available on the White House website (now scrubbed). To the one who signed the Paris Accord - now cancelled. To the one trying to move a country to green energy - discarded for a clean coal fantasy.
Does Trump hate the black president or science? Or both?
It's easy to blame Trump for much of our misery. But in this case, he's responsible for ignoring scientific fact as Houston streets are now a killing field of rivers. We are going backwards.
Does Trump hate the black president or science? Or both?
It's easy to blame Trump for much of our misery. But in this case, he's responsible for ignoring scientific fact as Houston streets are now a killing field of rivers. We are going backwards.
2
"Harvey, the Storm That Humans Helped Cause
It’s true, too. Some version of Harvey probably would have happened without climate change, and we’ll never know the hypothetical truth.
But it’s time to shed some of the fussy over-precision about the relationship between climate change and weather."
That fussy over-precision is required to make the headline statement, but don't let that stand in the way of a NY Times OP-ED piece pointed at Texas.
It’s true, too. Some version of Harvey probably would have happened without climate change, and we’ll never know the hypothetical truth.
But it’s time to shed some of the fussy over-precision about the relationship between climate change and weather."
That fussy over-precision is required to make the headline statement, but don't let that stand in the way of a NY Times OP-ED piece pointed at Texas.
I read a piece from one of your reporters who lives in Houston that generally people in the area believe that the media exaggerates in situations like this and so many did not head the warnings. Her observation equates with the anti-scientific "fake new" bias of the Texas body politic.
According to this view, Climate Change is a "Hoax" and any statement to the contrary is "Fake News, folks, it's all Fake News."
So, Mr. Trump: how's that five feet of water in your supporter's living rooms working out for them?
The problem is not scientific timidity, it is the sometimes not-so-subtle sociological difference between the demand for a scientifically correct statement and the willingness to accept a properly supported scientific conclusion. Climate Disruption Deniers play this game all the time, claiming an "absence of proof" when "proof" by any scientific definition such as p < .05, will never be available for a phenomenon such as "climate change" simply by the nature of the phenomenon. This is an uneducated view of science that underlies the claim of a conspiracy of climate scientists who must simply be making all this stuff up to obtain grants. Just like, in years past, it was asserted that the National Cancer Institute was falsely bashing tobacco while it was really secreting away the cure to get more money.
Like I said, how's that five feet of water working for you? Want a cigarette?
According to this view, Climate Change is a "Hoax" and any statement to the contrary is "Fake News, folks, it's all Fake News."
So, Mr. Trump: how's that five feet of water in your supporter's living rooms working out for them?
The problem is not scientific timidity, it is the sometimes not-so-subtle sociological difference between the demand for a scientifically correct statement and the willingness to accept a properly supported scientific conclusion. Climate Disruption Deniers play this game all the time, claiming an "absence of proof" when "proof" by any scientific definition such as p < .05, will never be available for a phenomenon such as "climate change" simply by the nature of the phenomenon. This is an uneducated view of science that underlies the claim of a conspiracy of climate scientists who must simply be making all this stuff up to obtain grants. Just like, in years past, it was asserted that the National Cancer Institute was falsely bashing tobacco while it was really secreting away the cure to get more money.
Like I said, how's that five feet of water working for you? Want a cigarette?
6
The majority of the US population now lives within areas subject to coastal flooding - using 2000 Census data just shy of our people live within 50 miles of the coast. That means more severe and persistent weather systems that are increasing- regardless of cause- already expose more than half of the people reading this.
Arguing over the cause instead of doing something to mitigate it's impact is like a group of Firefighters arguing the cause of the fire rather than fighting the fire and saving lives. The potential for more disasters with massive economic impact beyond the human tragedy is significant.
Human made problems can usually be fixed by humans. Hardening our critical infrastructure to withstand these events that will come will take time and money, but will generate many jobs that can stimulate the economy and we will get a rare chance to undo mistakes made when many of our cities were built out years ago. This really is a pay me now or pay me later situation.
For those interested here is a link to the abstract of a 2010 Study titled "An Estimate of the U.S. Population Living in 100-Year Coastal Flood Hazard Areas" in PDF format that I got my figure of the number of Americans living in the coastal areas most subject to these storms.
http://www.floods.org/PDF/JCR_Est_US_Pop_100y_CFHA_2010.pdf
Education is knowledge and knowledge is power. The storms will come and the floods will come unless we get busy. Nature cares not of your political party and she bats last.
Arguing over the cause instead of doing something to mitigate it's impact is like a group of Firefighters arguing the cause of the fire rather than fighting the fire and saving lives. The potential for more disasters with massive economic impact beyond the human tragedy is significant.
Human made problems can usually be fixed by humans. Hardening our critical infrastructure to withstand these events that will come will take time and money, but will generate many jobs that can stimulate the economy and we will get a rare chance to undo mistakes made when many of our cities were built out years ago. This really is a pay me now or pay me later situation.
For those interested here is a link to the abstract of a 2010 Study titled "An Estimate of the U.S. Population Living in 100-Year Coastal Flood Hazard Areas" in PDF format that I got my figure of the number of Americans living in the coastal areas most subject to these storms.
http://www.floods.org/PDF/JCR_Est_US_Pop_100y_CFHA_2010.pdf
Education is knowledge and knowledge is power. The storms will come and the floods will come unless we get busy. Nature cares not of your political party and she bats last.
4
"The daily surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico last winter never dropped below 73 degrees. You can probably guess how many previous times that had happened: Zero."
This is a false statement. It is a lie. The Gulf of Mexico has never fell below 73 degrees since we have been keeping records, which is less than 150 years, but the Gulf has existed for hundreds of millions of years.
This is a false statement. It is a lie. The Gulf of Mexico has never fell below 73 degrees since we have been keeping records, which is less than 150 years, but the Gulf has existed for hundreds of millions of years.
2
It's time we stopped using the polar bear as a symbol of our warming planet, and started using human devastation. Your photographs from Harvey are breathtaking, heartbreaking, terrifying...and compelling.
2
This needed to be said. Harvey was a record storm and there will be more of them as warmer seas and warmer air create the rivers of water that flow inland. One has to wonder what Texas Gov. Greg Abbot said the Houston region faces "a new normal."
How is it possible that the author recommends being honest about climate change, without even mentioning overpopulation? (And remember, vast numbers of women living in poverty desperately want access to contraceptives. See: Scientific American: Malcolm Potts: "The Unmet Need for Family Planning" http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-unmet-need-for-family-plan... )
2
Harvey is only the tip of the iceberg; when the oceans level start rising, where will the millions of americans living at sea level go for shelter. Probably close to where the millions of South east asians will want to go when, by 2050, their country will no longer be livable due to high tempertures. 2050 is tomorrow; shouldnt we start preparing...
2
Harvey in Texas represents the complete failure of our elected officials as so called leaders. They are paralyzed by the dominant money that runs the greater Texas area and their logic that putting CO2 into the atmosphere has zero effect.
As a meteorologist dealing daily with weather hazards - my particular specialty for whom I work for, its obvious the metrics of storm intensity and intense rainfall are quantified by climate data, and folks in the field (disregarding many older Mets who may be good forecasters were never taught climate) are fully aware something is a kilter, its igh time all in the broadcast met community begin to sound off. Silence if deafening and drowning. You just don't have 86 degrees water temperatures some of this 100's of meters deep despite storm up welling very often if at all in the recent instrumental past. therefore it is high time that academics begin teaching climate science to meteorologist who can convey a fuller picture of whats happening to the atmosphere, and getting a wiser public pushing elected leaders to develop proactive solutions and not reactionary embarrassing. denial
As a meteorologist dealing daily with weather hazards - my particular specialty for whom I work for, its obvious the metrics of storm intensity and intense rainfall are quantified by climate data, and folks in the field (disregarding many older Mets who may be good forecasters were never taught climate) are fully aware something is a kilter, its igh time all in the broadcast met community begin to sound off. Silence if deafening and drowning. You just don't have 86 degrees water temperatures some of this 100's of meters deep despite storm up welling very often if at all in the recent instrumental past. therefore it is high time that academics begin teaching climate science to meteorologist who can convey a fuller picture of whats happening to the atmosphere, and getting a wiser public pushing elected leaders to develop proactive solutions and not reactionary embarrassing. denial
3
There is one huge difference between scientific experiments that measure activites in the present or for a defined amount of future time. That is not the case with climate change models. The theory will never be provable in a scientific sense because it is not possible to set a measurement period of time.
Notwithstanding that, I believe we should act as if global warming theories are correct. Those who would change an old sysytem, Nature, bear the burden of proof. The climate change deniers have come nowhere near to bearing their burden of proof with regard to the huge amount of hydrocarbons introduced into the atmosphere in roughly the past 100 years as opposed to the billions of years for which the earth has existed.
Notwithstanding that, I believe we should act as if global warming theories are correct. Those who would change an old sysytem, Nature, bear the burden of proof. The climate change deniers have come nowhere near to bearing their burden of proof with regard to the huge amount of hydrocarbons introduced into the atmosphere in roughly the past 100 years as opposed to the billions of years for which the earth has existed.
1
Yesterday I watched a Congresswoman from the Houston area, being interviewed from where she was helping in an evacuation center, saying that after the immediate disaster was over the government was going to have to remedy the problems facing Houston: more retention ponds for water, better planning for flooding, etc. and I was thinking, you mean all the things that the money for has been voted down by the citizenry there for 30 years? All the regulations and zoning rules that they said impinges on development and competitiveness with other areas, their "freedom" to do as they liked with their property? Yes, now the Feds will have to step in to save these Freedom lovers from themselves and we all will have to pay for it because they have no tax base left after this destruction from which to raise the money, and because we are one country and we have sometimes to save the citizens from their own folly. For this is what their conservative, libertarian, "All for one, and that one is ME!" philosophy has wrought.
1
Not all Humans created Harvey. As a though experiment, think of the still un-contacted peoples of the Amazon forest whose ecological footprint is essentially zero.
Harvey is also Storm that Capitalism Helped Create. I refer not to just the reticence to regulate and tax fossil fuels, but also the allowance of unlimited growth, lax land use laws and sovereign preferences over food (the CO2 equivalent emissions from the cattle industry). Like a Gorgon, we must look Capitalism in the face.
Harvey is also Storm that Capitalism Helped Create. I refer not to just the reticence to regulate and tax fossil fuels, but also the allowance of unlimited growth, lax land use laws and sovereign preferences over food (the CO2 equivalent emissions from the cattle industry). Like a Gorgon, we must look Capitalism in the face.
5
Climate change is real and will be catastrophic as mankind appears unable to deal with it or the underlying problem of population growth. But why do we feel the need to tie specific weather events to climate change? This is a losing proposition, like deciding which cheeseburger caused your heart attack.
6
No one mentions the unrestricted growth and development in areas prone to flooding. The gulf coast is a perfect example of this, as are other coastal cities. I was in Houston several months ago and even after a few minutes of rain the streets were flooded and water was bubbling up from the sewers. We seem to need disasters to create movement toward change. May this change begin soon .
6
I really didn't want to write a comment during these past few days, that mentioned Trump's damaging environment stance and the GOP/Evangelical support of climate change "denial". But, if Trump/Pence won't acknowledge Intelligent Literate Real News than The Private Sector Firm will. I think new approaches/paradigms to Mainstream Living are the solution to improving the quality of life. New means progress, not rollbacks. This Private Sector Firm does not include those low level businessmen who are on the Trump Team.
As a person who has been reading the news for some decades now, my (perhaps fallible) memory does not recall past storms with so much rainfall. I have read some of the science of hurricanes, including some ingenious ideas of how to lower ocean water temperatures, but the connection of higher water temperature to increased strength and rainfall (as you note) seems pretty direct. Has anyone correlated water temperatures to rainfall amounts in previous major storms?
2
Mr. Leonhardt states the obvious to a vast majority of Americans and the world's 7 billion inhabitants. Unfortunately climate science denial is wedded to other types of denial that is important to the catastrophe in Houston. Roughly one year ago hyrdologists and other urban planners warned that southeastern Texas was ill-prepared to handle the significant runoff from all of the rivers and tributaries that drain the state into the Gulf of Mexico. If I recall correctly the total price-tag was around $15 billion to install the proper levies and dikes to prevent such a catastrophe. My point is that denying science--whether it has to do with hydrology, climate science, obesity, tobacco--is based on the fundamentals of unbridled capitalism. Specifically, regulations, carbon taxes, incorporating green spaces, understanding fructose metabolism are anathema to the industries that stand to lose significant amounts of profit in a system that has been benefiting them for the past 40-50 years. Therefore American voters are led to believe that regulation, taxes, and 'the heavy hand of government' are very bad. If you are a patriotic American why would you vote for political leadership who want to stifle the 'inherent goodness' of the free enterprise system. The consequences are tragic but obvious. The hard right has delegitimized science in the public interest; and Trump wants to eviscerate funding for all science entirely.
9
Our car is hurtling along at 70 mph. Ahead, there is a sign indicating a curve. Sitting beside the driver is a passenger who knows the road, who says "There's a tight corner up there. Better slow down." The denier behind the wheel ignores the warnings, and even accelerates. Like Captain Smith of the Titanic, our leaders ignore all warnings. Unfortunately we're all in that car, all in that ship. Wouldn't a sensible person slow down, just to be careful, if for no other reason?
7
Sorry, man, it isn't "our leaders." It's one or two groups--one major political party, which has had, at least since the middle 1960's, had a penchant for massive lying, and a major segment of, mostly white, Protestant Christianity. Please do not implicate those many, many of our leaders whose voices, although heard, are, now, being suppressed.
3
Good point - but I used the term with a degree of irony. Unfortunately, our present "leaders" are the guys behind the steering wheel. The fact that they have their eyes covered and their fingers in their ears is tragic.
1
Act II: The car hurtles off the cliff. The driver wrenches the steering wheel lose and hands it to the passenger. "Get us out of this!" Car crashes. Driver says to passenger, "Don't blame me, you were driving".
Perfect.
The future? I agree the damage from the warming of the Earth is terrifying. The problem is reaching a political consensus that global warming is human caused.
Why? It is because of the huge improvement in the human standard of living from using oil products -- gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and asphalt -- to create the greatest love story, in the history of humankind, the freedom of independent travel which has taken over the world.
It is the obsession of our time. Even though thousands are killed, injured,
& suffer from accidents and tailpipe pollution than tragic flooding, 9-11s, and wars, autos & trucks are now the major source of global warming gasses. Our next car? Electric
Next, is the acceptance of electricity, as an integral part of our lives and economic activity.
Much of our electricity, worldwide, is generated by coal-fired power plants. We are shifting but far too slowly, and the shift is mainly to natural gas, which is a much more potent global warming gas.
I have been worrying our problem since the 1970's and have reviewed 100s of ideas for getting humanity out of the fix it is in & believe that Dr. James Powell's invention of Superconducting Maglev transport is the future & using this technology to build a national Maglev network for trucks, freight, commuting, and launching solar satellites to orbit to beam cheap electricity to Earth should be a Manhattan Project. With cheap electricity we can make jet fuel from air & water in TX.
The future? I agree the damage from the warming of the Earth is terrifying. The problem is reaching a political consensus that global warming is human caused.
Why? It is because of the huge improvement in the human standard of living from using oil products -- gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and asphalt -- to create the greatest love story, in the history of humankind, the freedom of independent travel which has taken over the world.
It is the obsession of our time. Even though thousands are killed, injured,
& suffer from accidents and tailpipe pollution than tragic flooding, 9-11s, and wars, autos & trucks are now the major source of global warming gasses. Our next car? Electric
Next, is the acceptance of electricity, as an integral part of our lives and economic activity.
Much of our electricity, worldwide, is generated by coal-fired power plants. We are shifting but far too slowly, and the shift is mainly to natural gas, which is a much more potent global warming gas.
I have been worrying our problem since the 1970's and have reviewed 100s of ideas for getting humanity out of the fix it is in & believe that Dr. James Powell's invention of Superconducting Maglev transport is the future & using this technology to build a national Maglev network for trucks, freight, commuting, and launching solar satellites to orbit to beam cheap electricity to Earth should be a Manhattan Project. With cheap electricity we can make jet fuel from air & water in TX.
3
Thank you for this must read article.
I have been talking about this for days with anyone whom I met when the subject of Harvey came up.
Remember our kleptocratic dictator is proposing a budget that decreases funding for the very things that could prevent a catastrophic weather event such as Harvey from causing so much devastation.
Any sanctimonious sentiments that will come forth from the "presidential" mouth or twittering finger will ring hollow in my ear,s and should ring hollow in everyone adversely affected by Harvey. . .
I
I have been talking about this for days with anyone whom I met when the subject of Harvey came up.
Remember our kleptocratic dictator is proposing a budget that decreases funding for the very things that could prevent a catastrophic weather event such as Harvey from causing so much devastation.
Any sanctimonious sentiments that will come forth from the "presidential" mouth or twittering finger will ring hollow in my ear,s and should ring hollow in everyone adversely affected by Harvey. . .
I
7
Excellent article. It seems incontestable that the global temperatures are rising, and that this rise is generating more extreme weather events.
I have only one small concern about the article, in which it states "a lack of zoning laws has led to an explosion of building, which further worsens flooding." This is a logical fallacy. The errant zoning laws worsen the EFFECTS of flooding on people, not the actual flooding itself.
Our path forward involves reducing greenhouse gases, etc., but it is, at this stage, also, perhaps fundamentally, about adaptation to the projected flooding, etc.
We have seen the error of our ways, and we can now project the impacts of those errors in a way that will help us adapt. Head for higher ground, and make sure local, regional, national and international zoning addresses the problems.
Are we "guilty"? Sort of... (it's a question of intent.) Can we apply our creativity to solutions within our reach? Absolutely! Best wishes for a speedy recovery and rebuild in Texas.
I have only one small concern about the article, in which it states "a lack of zoning laws has led to an explosion of building, which further worsens flooding." This is a logical fallacy. The errant zoning laws worsen the EFFECTS of flooding on people, not the actual flooding itself.
Our path forward involves reducing greenhouse gases, etc., but it is, at this stage, also, perhaps fundamentally, about adaptation to the projected flooding, etc.
We have seen the error of our ways, and we can now project the impacts of those errors in a way that will help us adapt. Head for higher ground, and make sure local, regional, national and international zoning addresses the problems.
Are we "guilty"? Sort of... (it's a question of intent.) Can we apply our creativity to solutions within our reach? Absolutely! Best wishes for a speedy recovery and rebuild in Texas.
1
It's not at all a logcal fallacy to say that if we hadn't paved over the wetlands, farmlands and bare ground that would have absorbed a lot of the water rather than cranking up the runoff, the flooding would have been far less bad.
1
I suppose you're right. Thanks.
Yes this article is one hundred percent correct. It is absolutely amazing that
this president and many in congress continue to deny climate change. Look at the fires in California and other parts of the west. Look at the floods in many other parts of the world. Look at the increase in average world wide temperatures. This president and many in congress do not look and thus they do not see the increasing affects of climate change. For ourselves and for the sake of future generations we must do much, much more to slow the pace of climate change.
this president and many in congress continue to deny climate change. Look at the fires in California and other parts of the west. Look at the floods in many other parts of the world. Look at the increase in average world wide temperatures. This president and many in congress do not look and thus they do not see the increasing affects of climate change. For ourselves and for the sake of future generations we must do much, much more to slow the pace of climate change.
5
It would help if scientists could explain climate change in as simple and forceful a manner as the President or talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh summon to call it a hoax. I was actually struck the other day by Rush's comments on climate scientists, drawing on the fact that exact weather predictions are impossible, to argue in essence that it is completely impossible for researchers to draw conclusions about long term climate trends. His message was simple, articulate, compelling, and completely wrong. Just as wrong as arguing the outcome of 1000 coin flips based on the inability to predict one flip with better than 50-50 certainty. The former has a near certain statistical outcome. Climate change predictions appear to be approaching that certainty for anyone who looks at the evidence.
4
See below, simple enough? Climate change advocates insisting that Harvey is caused by global warming are no better than climate change deniers. Actually they are worse, as instead of denying the theory they are discarding the science that support their beliefs, creating propaganda.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
Predictions:
The population in the region will continue to grow.
Unfettered unregulated development will continue.
The majority of Texans will continue to elect climate deniers such as governor Abbott.
Sea level will continue to rise.
Storms such as Harvey will continue with increasing frequency and intensity.
Galveston will be abandoned by the end of the century.
The population in the region will continue to grow.
Unfettered unregulated development will continue.
The majority of Texans will continue to elect climate deniers such as governor Abbott.
Sea level will continue to rise.
Storms such as Harvey will continue with increasing frequency and intensity.
Galveston will be abandoned by the end of the century.
10
For the last two years, as I pursued an education in climate science, I've fretted over the lack of alarm for extreme flooding in Southeastern US. The immediate consequences of climate change for the US suggest Southeastern flooding is worst, with poor and elderly people set to bear it. My fears were confirmed after flooding in Louisiana showed 500 and 1000 year events occurring multiple times in the last decade.
I'm grateful to see readers converted, sensitive to the peril we and our neighbors are in. It must be clear and repeated that three months ago this President and Scott Pruitt chose to stop lowering CO2 levels. In my eyes, this is manslaughter. Harvey is still only the beginning of the social and economic consequenes we will face. Please everyone open your minds to see how powerful a force we disturbed by changing the climate, and tell your friends.
I'm grateful to see readers converted, sensitive to the peril we and our neighbors are in. It must be clear and repeated that three months ago this President and Scott Pruitt chose to stop lowering CO2 levels. In my eyes, this is manslaughter. Harvey is still only the beginning of the social and economic consequenes we will face. Please everyone open your minds to see how powerful a force we disturbed by changing the climate, and tell your friends.
11
The science "beat" is very important for news organizations.
Good reporters and editors who understand and clearly cover science are as important as those who understand Wall Street and the Fed.
Good reporters and editors who understand and clearly cover science are as important as those who understand Wall Street and the Fed.
7
You don't have to be a scientist to pay attention. But what you do have to do is stop filtering your knowledge through pre-formed opinions and social pressure or politics.
Start looking not only at US weather but at world weather. Remember climate is trends of weather over space (the whole globe and its atmosphere) and time (several decades).
Do you know what happened in Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, South America, even the poles even this year? We don't hear about it, but there was just a storm in south China that rained for days and days and days, and the pictures looked just like these. Same in other parts of the world.
I could wish that the NYTimes would have a column on the front page that tracks worldwide extreme events. They're doing better at reporting them, but the aggregate is worth a look.
I've been paying good attention since the mid oughts, and I can tell you things have changed. We've gotten used to more extreme. Sea level is higher and on the point of accelerating after a long slow increase. Species are migrating. Glaciers are melting. Mudslides and landslides are increasing, as are wildfires. There are other factors, but on the whole, the changes are quite obvious to a curious and observant person. You don't need to understand the science to see that they are studying and describing something real.
There are, as many note, other factors. With an increasing population people are moving to less hospitable locations and "paving over paradise".
Start looking not only at US weather but at world weather. Remember climate is trends of weather over space (the whole globe and its atmosphere) and time (several decades).
Do you know what happened in Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, South America, even the poles even this year? We don't hear about it, but there was just a storm in south China that rained for days and days and days, and the pictures looked just like these. Same in other parts of the world.
I could wish that the NYTimes would have a column on the front page that tracks worldwide extreme events. They're doing better at reporting them, but the aggregate is worth a look.
I've been paying good attention since the mid oughts, and I can tell you things have changed. We've gotten used to more extreme. Sea level is higher and on the point of accelerating after a long slow increase. Species are migrating. Glaciers are melting. Mudslides and landslides are increasing, as are wildfires. There are other factors, but on the whole, the changes are quite obvious to a curious and observant person. You don't need to understand the science to see that they are studying and describing something real.
There are, as many note, other factors. With an increasing population people are moving to less hospitable locations and "paving over paradise".
22
Climate change and economic disparity/"inequality," the two primary scourges of modern life that the political system is hardly addressing, and which are poised to continue to bring misery to billions of people.
6
On a dynamic biologically, chemically and physically active planet climate change is scientifically inevitable. Chronological ecological change will naturally and normally select and isolate those living things that are best adapted evolutionarily fit to survive by leaving the most offspring. Extinction is the natural order of climate change.
Humans are the first living things to know and understand their role in climate change on Earth. From their rise about 230 million years ago to their avian bird surviving living legacy the dinosaurs were never nearly as "smart" as we humans are. Whether or not our primate ape brain will benefit or cost us as the climate changes is unknown.
Humans are the first living things to know and understand their role in climate change on Earth. From their rise about 230 million years ago to their avian bird surviving living legacy the dinosaurs were never nearly as "smart" as we humans are. Whether or not our primate ape brain will benefit or cost us as the climate changes is unknown.
4
In "real life", there have only been five extinction of the magnitude of what is happening today before humans walked on earth, in the earth's entire 4.5 billion years (or rather, in the 3.5 billion years that there's life on earth).
So no, extinctions actually have been proven to be the very opposite of "the natural order of climate change". And often the main cause isn't climate change (it's an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, for instance ...).
The climate does constantly change however. BUT compared to what's happening today, they change SLOWLY, giving most species the time to evolve and adapt. Slowly means that a temperature increase of 2 degrees normally takes tens of thousands of years, not 150 years as is happening today.
Finally, human life didn't start 230 million years ago, it started 300.000 years ago. The last Great Extinction took place 65 million years ago, and no humans walked the earth at the time. Even mammals didn't exist 230 million years ago - the first ones were born during the Jurassic period (200 - 145 million years ago). And flowers for instance are even more recent.
If you add to that the fact that today, atmospheric CO2 levels are at 400ppm, and that you have to go back 4 million years (= before humans existed) to find levels that high, AND that is has been proven that this sudden increase (= over 150) is caused by human activity, you get a sense of how vulnerable and rare life on earth actually is, and WHY humans have to act NOW.
So no, extinctions actually have been proven to be the very opposite of "the natural order of climate change". And often the main cause isn't climate change (it's an asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, for instance ...).
The climate does constantly change however. BUT compared to what's happening today, they change SLOWLY, giving most species the time to evolve and adapt. Slowly means that a temperature increase of 2 degrees normally takes tens of thousands of years, not 150 years as is happening today.
Finally, human life didn't start 230 million years ago, it started 300.000 years ago. The last Great Extinction took place 65 million years ago, and no humans walked the earth at the time. Even mammals didn't exist 230 million years ago - the first ones were born during the Jurassic period (200 - 145 million years ago). And flowers for instance are even more recent.
If you add to that the fact that today, atmospheric CO2 levels are at 400ppm, and that you have to go back 4 million years (= before humans existed) to find levels that high, AND that is has been proven that this sudden increase (= over 150) is caused by human activity, you get a sense of how vulnerable and rare life on earth actually is, and WHY humans have to act NOW.
4
Sadly, objectively speaking there is little or no evidence that "intelligence" has long term evolutionary value. In an evolutionary blink of an eye we have used our intelligence to make the planet increasingly hostile to our survival, as well as creating increasingly more powerful and risky dangers to our survival should anything "go wrong".
But aside from us, has intelligence given the chimps or other great apes any kind of advantage? Far from being the runner up species for world domination, or even the obvious ruling species if humans didn't exist, they remain an interesting footnote for life on earth. Same for elephants, for instance.
In fact, there is no correlation between evolutionary success and intelligence. On land, the unquestioned winner remains insects, particularly beetles, as it has for millions of years; even as the current epidemic of extinctions continues. In the ocean, I don't know what species would be considered most successful, but again, whales and dolphins and the like are no more than interesting oddities.
But aside from us, has intelligence given the chimps or other great apes any kind of advantage? Far from being the runner up species for world domination, or even the obvious ruling species if humans didn't exist, they remain an interesting footnote for life on earth. Same for elephants, for instance.
In fact, there is no correlation between evolutionary success and intelligence. On land, the unquestioned winner remains insects, particularly beetles, as it has for millions of years; even as the current epidemic of extinctions continues. In the ocean, I don't know what species would be considered most successful, but again, whales and dolphins and the like are no more than interesting oddities.
1
The excess of building and cement causing less land to absorb rain is not stressed enough. Miami is a perfect example Water in the streets were a norm thirty years ago, and since then the amount of building for the sake of tourism and enterprise have made it a prime target for future drowning of the city.
Man made decisions have caused so much agony in so many areas of life for the sake of prosperity. The loss cannot even be estimated.
Man made decisions have caused so much agony in so many areas of life for the sake of prosperity. The loss cannot even be estimated.
8
Regardless of whether Harvey can be directly attributed to climate change caused by human activity, the surfeit of super storms since year 2000 indicates the frequency of such weather will increase in a geometric progression unless carbon emissions are drastically reduced around the world.
The big picture here is our President's obsession with overturning the common sense measures enacted by President Obama in the face of this reality, from withdrawing from the Paris accords to reversing regulations to protect infrastructure against flooding just days before Hurricane Harvey hit.
The big picture here is our President's obsession with overturning the common sense measures enacted by President Obama in the face of this reality, from withdrawing from the Paris accords to reversing regulations to protect infrastructure against flooding just days before Hurricane Harvey hit.
8
Geometric progression?
2
"Regardless of whether Harvey can be directly attributed to climate change caused by human activity, "
Hey, the lead-in of the OP-ED piece made for good politics so let's just say it was caused in part by humans.
Hey, the lead-in of the OP-ED piece made for good politics so let's just say it was caused in part by humans.
"In mathematics, a geometric progression, also known as a geometric sequence, is a sequence of numbers where each term after the first is found by multiplying the previous one by a fixed, non-zero number called the common ratio. For example, the sequence 2, 6, 18, 54, ... is a geometric progression with common ratio 3."
It means that things get exponentially worse, even though the factor that multiplies what is already there, remains the same.
Example: today we add 40 gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.
A CO2 molecule, however, stays a century into the atmosphere before being absorbed (by trees, ...). Each CO2 molecule warms up the planet. So if year one has for instance 40 GT of CO2 in the air, year two has 80GT, year three 120GT etc., and each year, only 1% of it disappear.
That's why it's SO important to act NOW, rather than waiting until 2030 (= end of Paris accord), you see? If we don't act now, CO2 levels will be MUCH higher by 2030, so even if from then on until 2100 we dramatically lower CO2 emissions, the overall "volume" of it that will be in the air still by 2100 will be much higher, because of "geometric progression". Or rather, in this example you'd have to call it a "arithmetic progression", as you don't multiply by a fixed ratio but add a fixed amount.
As to hurricanes increasing in a geometric progression: I didn't see any evidence of that yet, but lots of evidence proving that they will become more frequent and more severe.
It means that things get exponentially worse, even though the factor that multiplies what is already there, remains the same.
Example: today we add 40 gigatonnes of CO2 to the atmosphere each year.
A CO2 molecule, however, stays a century into the atmosphere before being absorbed (by trees, ...). Each CO2 molecule warms up the planet. So if year one has for instance 40 GT of CO2 in the air, year two has 80GT, year three 120GT etc., and each year, only 1% of it disappear.
That's why it's SO important to act NOW, rather than waiting until 2030 (= end of Paris accord), you see? If we don't act now, CO2 levels will be MUCH higher by 2030, so even if from then on until 2100 we dramatically lower CO2 emissions, the overall "volume" of it that will be in the air still by 2100 will be much higher, because of "geometric progression". Or rather, in this example you'd have to call it a "arithmetic progression", as you don't multiply by a fixed ratio but add a fixed amount.
As to hurricanes increasing in a geometric progression: I didn't see any evidence of that yet, but lots of evidence proving that they will become more frequent and more severe.
1
Once upon a time there was a president who spoke to the citizenry in front of a fireplace wearing a wool sweater urging them to turn down their thermostats to begin mitigating the effects of over consumption of fossil fuels. Many sneered scorned and excoriated him. In that same mid-20th century millions attended the first Earth Day celebrations where they listened to talks on environmental degradation, over population and diminution of species if we didn't change habits. Some paid close attention and set out to do what they could by recycling, buying more fuel efficient cars, practicing birth control, and using alternative energy. Others didn't. A half century or more later we are living out that man made planetary degradation. Our 'chickens come home to roost' as we were fore-warned they would.
27
Not mentioned is the fact that most of Houston's population and business is directly or indirectly contributing to the global climate change that has made Hurricane Harvey what it has become, so in a way this is Nature's response to those insults. In this case I contend that "blame the victims" is the correct response -- until we all realize what our actions are doing to the Earth and its atmosphere, we will continue to be "victims at fault". Driving an electric car, and living where 97+% of electricity consumed is generated without either fossil fuels or nuclear, I can claim I personally am less of the problem, but still a small part.
6
"Not mentioned is the fact that most of Houston's population and business is directly or indirectly contributing to the global climate change that has made Hurricane Harvey what it has become,"
Did you read the article?
Did you read the article?
Well said.
However, I'd like to add context:
Texas Governor Rick Perry threatened to have Texas secede from the Union some years ago and that many Texans signed a petition to that effect a couple of years katerand that Texas usually ranks at or near the bottom in health, education and its treatment of women, plus in several other critical categories Texas evinces the same dreary FACTS.
Yet Texas has always boasted that its the best state for jobs. Perhaps they are certain types of jobs.
I also wonder why Northen taxpayers have some of their tax money drift south each year.
However, I'd like to add context:
Texas Governor Rick Perry threatened to have Texas secede from the Union some years ago and that many Texans signed a petition to that effect a couple of years katerand that Texas usually ranks at or near the bottom in health, education and its treatment of women, plus in several other critical categories Texas evinces the same dreary FACTS.
Yet Texas has always boasted that its the best state for jobs. Perhaps they are certain types of jobs.
I also wonder why Northen taxpayers have some of their tax money drift south each year.
8
Al Gore was right, imho, the biggest threat to our lives as we know them is global warming. If the predictions are only half true, we may be facing regular Harvey hurricanes on a regular basis. I would think the biggest nightmare, one we haven't had, is that a mega event occurs in the same city the very following y year. At that point, recovery becomes almost impossible and could lead to the dehabitation of major population centers as the pattern goes on. The human cost is huge, but the economic cost is beyond comprehension, it would be earth shattering.
And with current administration attitudes, deregulation, lack of planning for a climate event that we deny will doom future generations sooner than we imagined.
And with current administration attitudes, deregulation, lack of planning for a climate event that we deny will doom future generations sooner than we imagined.
15
You do the case for climate change no favors by confusing the difference between climate and weather. They overlap, but only somewhat. Climate change is real and ominous, but let's keep it scientific. Following Rahm Emanuel's advice to never pass up a disaster only opens the door for climate change critics.
1
I don't see your point. It's clear that the oceans are warming and that causes more extreme weather. Climate encapsulates the weather.
If there are more particles of methane, carbon dioxide and other green house gases in the upper atmosphere the planet warms, when the planet warms the weather in different areas is affected.
When you have 50 inches or over 4 feet of water accumulate in 3 days of rain we're looking at global warming in action, and since there's so much pavement human caused.
If there are more particles of methane, carbon dioxide and other green house gases in the upper atmosphere the planet warms, when the planet warms the weather in different areas is affected.
When you have 50 inches or over 4 feet of water accumulate in 3 days of rain we're looking at global warming in action, and since there's so much pavement human caused.
1
How does this op-ed confuse the difference between climate and the weather?
It rather explains a direct link between both.
Yes, scientists have confirmed that you cannot link the CAUSE of one particular weather event in an entirely proven way to climate change.
However, as this article rightly points out, it has been proven that because of climate change, ocean water is warmer and the atmosphere is hotter and sea levels are higher. On the other hand, it has also been proven that WHEN that is the case, hurricanes become worse, carrying much more water, so provoking much more rainfall and flooding.
So you seem to have forgotten that even though the climate at a certain point in time isn't just the sum of all weather events at that moment, there do is a DIRECT and scientifically proven link between climate factors and the intensity of weather events? In other words, you seem to believe that climate and weather are totally independent? If yes, that's false.
If you smoke your entire life and die from lung cancer, cigarettes and the cancer in your lung remain two different things ... but the one caused the other. The same goes for the relation between climate and weather, and it's crucially important for people to understand what this op-ed is pointing out in order to be able to know how to act to prevent more damage in the future.
It rather explains a direct link between both.
Yes, scientists have confirmed that you cannot link the CAUSE of one particular weather event in an entirely proven way to climate change.
However, as this article rightly points out, it has been proven that because of climate change, ocean water is warmer and the atmosphere is hotter and sea levels are higher. On the other hand, it has also been proven that WHEN that is the case, hurricanes become worse, carrying much more water, so provoking much more rainfall and flooding.
So you seem to have forgotten that even though the climate at a certain point in time isn't just the sum of all weather events at that moment, there do is a DIRECT and scientifically proven link between climate factors and the intensity of weather events? In other words, you seem to believe that climate and weather are totally independent? If yes, that's false.
If you smoke your entire life and die from lung cancer, cigarettes and the cancer in your lung remain two different things ... but the one caused the other. The same goes for the relation between climate and weather, and it's crucially important for people to understand what this op-ed is pointing out in order to be able to know how to act to prevent more damage in the future.
1
Actually, he did a brilliant job clarifying that a catastrophic flooding event is to climate change as a case of lung cancer is to smoking; and an auto accident is to drunk driving; and a saved life is to seat belts. The latter three are all widely understood to be causally related. It's time we included the first of these relationships.
1
Why is this author, and practically everyone else, falling in line with the repub distraction by calling it climate change? It's not global cooling that's triggering the weather disasters; it's GLOBAL WARMING caused by a blanket of CO2 sent into the atmosphere by us. You wouldn't think there was enough sand to bury virtually every head, but it turns out there is.
8
Finally! Some common sense! In 2005, I had lived in Austin TX for 40 years. My sister and I talked about that monster hurricane season and reached the conclusion that climate change fed the weather. Austin is flood prone anyway, and there were other issues involved in our decision to move inland. It was a good decision. I miss Austin, and was considering moving back........until now. We were right to move inland and why not beat the rush? This is only going to get worse. Thanks for the article!
8
It seems reasonably intelligent and the smart thing to do. One of the last things I do before retiring for bed is to listen to the weatherman or check online about the next day's forcast. When we plan our all too infrequent vacations, we check the extended forcast and pack and prepare accordingly. We utilize the expertise of the science of Meteorology...the attempt to predict weather and so it follows...climate. This is the start of many of my conversations/discussions with my friends who question my sanity when I express my belief that we humans are indeed contributing to a warmer planet and it's consequences. It seems to start a sane and indeed calmer discussion on our need to use Science and not opinion to look into the serious ramifications of ignoring what to many of us is the obvious, that climate change needs serious investment of time expertise and money. Your column today adds more rationality to the discussion of why the US budget should contain the dollars to invest in exploring and then acting upon the obvious.
1
Hearing about the quantity of rain and seeing photos of the flooding in Houston feels like a Stephen King novel.
I agree that climate change is hard at work, and a stiff carbon tax is long overdue.
I agree that climate change is hard at work, and a stiff carbon tax is long overdue.
5
"The daily surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico last winter never dropped below 73 degrees. You can probably guess how many previous times that had happened: Zero."
Only if you don't know how to read. Follow the link: previous times this has happened *on record* -- zero.
Question: How long is "on record"? Whatever it is, and it probably is only a matter of forty or so years, it is beyond credulous to say that it had never ever happened before, not even once.
Only if you don't know how to read. Follow the link: previous times this has happened *on record* -- zero.
Question: How long is "on record"? Whatever it is, and it probably is only a matter of forty or so years, it is beyond credulous to say that it had never ever happened before, not even once.
3
Sign of the denialist: interested only in posing questions, not in the answers, which are easily found but don't serve the purpose of slinging doubt.
Galveston "formerly served as the capital of the Republic of Texas, and it has formal meteorological records that date all the way back to 1874."
Suggested retort: "Why, that's not even 150 years! Billions of years ago, the earth waa a ball of molten lava, even though nobody drove cars!"
Galveston "formerly served as the capital of the Republic of Texas, and it has formal meteorological records that date all the way back to 1874."
Suggested retort: "Why, that's not even 150 years! Billions of years ago, the earth waa a ball of molten lava, even though nobody drove cars!"
1
No, it's the sign of someone who hates inaccurate, hysterical, nonsense. The statement "You can probably guess how many previous times that had happened: Zero." is just flat wrong, as anyone who is remotely interested in accurate writing would immediately spot.
Which is par for the NYT course. Whenever the NYT wants to make something climate related sound unprecedented, the phrase "[fill in the blank] on record." Why use "since 1977" (first year of satellite observations) when "on record" sounds so much longer.
Which is par for the NYT course. Whenever the NYT wants to make something climate related sound unprecedented, the phrase "[fill in the blank] on record." Why use "since 1977" (first year of satellite observations) when "on record" sounds so much longer.
HARVEY is telling us that do some thing about your climate change policy , l do not understand why this is q republican or democrat issue , we have to have a new leader , who cares about us because my country is slowly going down, l just do not like what is going on yo my country
3
Yeah, in the meantime China and India can do as they please. You fail to understand the US isn't the one and only contributor on the planet. That's a massive failure on your side.
Sadly, your ignorance would be removed by a study of climate and storm activity on the planet over the past two thousand years.
3
Enough chit-chat, gossip or conversation!
And follow Keith Olbermann advice, and demand: RESIST, ...REMOVE! ... IMPEACH the Climate-Denier-in-Chief!
This could be the first and most important contribution to save humanity.
And follow Keith Olbermann advice, and demand: RESIST, ...REMOVE! ... IMPEACH the Climate-Denier-in-Chief!
This could be the first and most important contribution to save humanity.
4
Your comments attempt to link President Trump to Hurricane Harvey and to the awful damage and disruption in Houston and the rest of south Texas.
I am not a Trump supporter, but I feel obliged to point out that President Trump is not responsible for causing Hurricane Harvey nor is he responsible for causing the extensive flooding and damage in South Texas and neighboring states. To suggest otherwise is to provide ammunition to right-wingers who claim that most liberals are air-heads.
I am not a Trump supporter, but I feel obliged to point out that President Trump is not responsible for causing Hurricane Harvey nor is he responsible for causing the extensive flooding and damage in South Texas and neighboring states. To suggest otherwise is to provide ammunition to right-wingers who claim that most liberals are air-heads.
if the southern wall had been built, it would have been soon enough blocked by debris thus in effect becoming a dam holding back storm water from draining back to sea. this would have been a horrible situation to horrible conditions on
land.
fortunately this has not occured but for future storms this possibility should be carefully studied before a wall is actually built.
mine is not a political statement, rather, it is food for thought.
for every difficult problem there is a simple solution, and it is usually wrong as well
land.
fortunately this has not occured but for future storms this possibility should be carefully studied before a wall is actually built.
mine is not a political statement, rather, it is food for thought.
for every difficult problem there is a simple solution, and it is usually wrong as well
1
It's amazing, but true, imagine a huge damn creating a reservoir where you don't want it. Note also, deregulation is a huge theme for the GOP and Trump, but it was deregulation in Houston that allowed for unregulated and unwise development that did not take flooding into account. Also, Trump was to deregulate on flood control for future projects. It strikes me that the freeways turned rivers in Houston should make the orange one think again.
Under Obama there was some progress and therefore hope. Now STUPID has taken control and we are about to waste 4 years going backwards on climate change. I fear we are doomed. Ironically, most of these devastating storms have hit areas of the country that support the present idiots in power who want more greenhouse gas producing energy.
12
Sandy did the most damage in NY and New Jersey.
And Irene flooded a lot of the Northeast. Blaming people like that is no different than some preacher stating that someone deserved a storm because it was an act of God.
Thanks for this very much needed OpEd!
Harvey highlights the urgent importance of decentralized power on a fast warming planet.
24/7 solar powered engines will soon provide 1 kW and larger emergency generators that need no fuel.
These hard to believe engines can scale. They can replace the flood vulnerable huge diesel engines at nuclear plants. As at Fukushima, floods can cause great danger.
A converted Ford engine ran without fuel to prove the concept. Additional engines are being converted and will be verified and validated by independent laboratories.
These engines expand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Most scientists and engineers cannot believe they are possible, let alone practical. A White Paper is available. The work reflects 27 years of effort by Kenneth Rauen. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES at aesopinstitute.org
Trolls are certain such work must reflect fraud and dishonesty, making funding efforts a nightmare. A few bold individuals can accelerate the effort.
Imagine the implications. Power generation at every scale operating 24/7 without need for fuel. Cars, trucks, boats, ships and aircraft dispensing with the fossil fuels - (or any kind of fuel).
Similar engines will self-power refrigeration and air-conditioning.
Rapid development and commercialization of this revolutionary science and technology can improve the odds for human survival on this rapidly warming planet.
And perhaps help avoid ever more destructive hurricanes and violent storms.
Harvey highlights the urgent importance of decentralized power on a fast warming planet.
24/7 solar powered engines will soon provide 1 kW and larger emergency generators that need no fuel.
These hard to believe engines can scale. They can replace the flood vulnerable huge diesel engines at nuclear plants. As at Fukushima, floods can cause great danger.
A converted Ford engine ran without fuel to prove the concept. Additional engines are being converted and will be verified and validated by independent laboratories.
These engines expand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Most scientists and engineers cannot believe they are possible, let alone practical. A White Paper is available. The work reflects 27 years of effort by Kenneth Rauen. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES at aesopinstitute.org
Trolls are certain such work must reflect fraud and dishonesty, making funding efforts a nightmare. A few bold individuals can accelerate the effort.
Imagine the implications. Power generation at every scale operating 24/7 without need for fuel. Cars, trucks, boats, ships and aircraft dispensing with the fossil fuels - (or any kind of fuel).
Similar engines will self-power refrigeration and air-conditioning.
Rapid development and commercialization of this revolutionary science and technology can improve the odds for human survival on this rapidly warming planet.
And perhaps help avoid ever more destructive hurricanes and violent storms.
Denying climate change is like denying the Holocaust: it's dumb and it insults the victims.
The deniers argue with vehemence yet without facts, a tip off that exposes their vile war with whatever ails them, a sad bunch who want also to hurt their children---and yours.
The deniers argue with vehemence yet without facts, a tip off that exposes their vile war with whatever ails them, a sad bunch who want also to hurt their children---and yours.
5
And didn't the twit-in-chief just rescind the Obama flood rule that would require federally funded infrastructure projects to withstand rising sea levels and intense rain storms, given the claim that this was nothing more than a hindrance to business?
15
It's unfortunate that this storm isn't happening in the 'rust belt' so that Trump supporters could get a full dose of what they voted for...
When the Gulf of Mexico has moved up to about Dallas, then it's possible some of those climate change deniers might change their mind. However, if the two current Texas Senators (Ted & John) are still around they will blame it on the Democrats.
12
Cruz should stay away from big crowds, they may try to lynch him.
Or HRC or Obama.
Best thing to do is hurry out to get one of those yearend deals on a new pickup or SUV. Then drive as much as you can. Gas is cheap. Definitely do not buy a small fuel-efficient vehicle. You deserve everything you've been marketed at to want.
5
Bullfeathers..if you want to make a difference Mr. Leonhardt get off your tuckus and go to Houston to help those impacted by this monster storm.
1
Hey, hey, GOP, how many folks did you drown today?!!
5
Hey Democrats, how many people did you drown with Irene and Sandy?
Pretty ignorant.
Pretty ignorant.
Perhaps the resistance to accepting responsability for climate change is an all to human response. Who wants to be blamed for disaster. Maybe if the "maketing" approach was changed, instead of people being blamed, humans could be "heros." Who wouldn't want to be a soldier fighting to save the planet for ther children and grandchildren! If this message were repeated over and over again people might start believing it. It"s a tactic that seems to work in politics.
4
I like the reference to the Manhattan Project. Humans will truly have evolved when they bring such resources to bear in saving lives instead of destroying them.
7
You say climate change.
I say global warming.
Lets call the whole thing off.
I say global warming.
Lets call the whole thing off.
2
Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones was unapologetic about spreading fake news stories and calling the 2017 Houston flooding a “hoax” during a testy interview with NBC host Megyn Kelly Sunday.
“I do think there’s some coverup and some manipulation,” Jones said of the massive flooding and hurricane in southeast Texas.
"I've watched the footage and it looks like a drill," Jones said of videos showing some Texans leaving their houses with their dogs and children over their heads. “That was so lame. Those dogs weren't even wet...."
“I do think there’s some coverup and some manipulation,” Jones said of the massive flooding and hurricane in southeast Texas.
"I've watched the footage and it looks like a drill," Jones said of videos showing some Texans leaving their houses with their dogs and children over their heads. “That was so lame. Those dogs weren't even wet...."
7
Sir:
Although your concern is laudable and your intent is likely an honest one, your arguments are very short on direct evidence. And even if you are right, and even if Harvey would not have happened without global human activity, you have not suggested a single activity, single action we could take that would change the weather, to make it more "friendly" to us.
I think that there is enough global geoevidence to tell us that we have little if any control over changes that go on continuously and periodically with our Planet.
I understand you need to be politically correct. In the former Soviet Union they used to claim that they could rain happen when and where it was needed...So, if you really know, tell us what needs to be done!
Although your concern is laudable and your intent is likely an honest one, your arguments are very short on direct evidence. And even if you are right, and even if Harvey would not have happened without global human activity, you have not suggested a single activity, single action we could take that would change the weather, to make it more "friendly" to us.
I think that there is enough global geoevidence to tell us that we have little if any control over changes that go on continuously and periodically with our Planet.
I understand you need to be politically correct. In the former Soviet Union they used to claim that they could rain happen when and where it was needed...So, if you really know, tell us what needs to be done!
Ask the people on Tangier Island in Virginia.
Then, google what the Dutch are doing in the Netherlands.
There's lots of info out there and lots that can be done, but at a huge cost.
Then, google what the Dutch are doing in the Netherlands.
There's lots of info out there and lots that can be done, but at a huge cost.
4
The culture of Texas with regard to Climate Change has not been changing for the more progressive.
According to the Time's detailed piece on US regional attitudes about Climate Change, Texans in the region of this storm's flooding simply tend to believe that whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real or not, they're pretty sure it won't effect them, so why worry?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-thi...
Texans are believers, that's where Joel Osteen's mega-church of mass-believers was just rescued from.
They're also big into Big Oil, Big Beef, big Belt Buckles & Boots & the whold God/Guts & Glory 'Don't Mess with Texas' ready-to-seceed 'if you come for our guns', ready to revolt to the last man at the Alamo.
And along with Alex Jones, they're ready for the apocalypse, which is coming, more likely from inner-city 'elites' from the East & West coast than from God, but either way, they're ready for it.
So, not to generalize, but Texans have never wanted you to worry about them, they don't worry about you, just let them deal with their deal, & don't mess with Texas until they mess with you. These are 'rugged' people who are quite certain they can manage on their own, so leave them to it.
According to the Time's detailed piece on US regional attitudes about Climate Change, Texans in the region of this storm's flooding simply tend to believe that whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real or not, they're pretty sure it won't effect them, so why worry?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/21/climate/how-americans-thi...
Texans are believers, that's where Joel Osteen's mega-church of mass-believers was just rescued from.
They're also big into Big Oil, Big Beef, big Belt Buckles & Boots & the whold God/Guts & Glory 'Don't Mess with Texas' ready-to-seceed 'if you come for our guns', ready to revolt to the last man at the Alamo.
And along with Alex Jones, they're ready for the apocalypse, which is coming, more likely from inner-city 'elites' from the East & West coast than from God, but either way, they're ready for it.
So, not to generalize, but Texans have never wanted you to worry about them, they don't worry about you, just let them deal with their deal, & don't mess with Texas until they mess with you. These are 'rugged' people who are quite certain they can manage on their own, so leave them to it.
7
Excellent link - and commentary!
2
O.K. I think I can follow this:
* Texas is a solidly red state with a few splotches of blue.
* GOP doctrine is that global warming and consequential climate change is a hoax.
* The good people of Texas are hoping the President returns to DC with the message of untold billions needed for relief and recovery.
* The rest of the country - especially deep blue states like MA and NY - will cough it up.
* All to pay for a hoax.
Have I got this right?
* Texas is a solidly red state with a few splotches of blue.
* GOP doctrine is that global warming and consequential climate change is a hoax.
* The good people of Texas are hoping the President returns to DC with the message of untold billions needed for relief and recovery.
* The rest of the country - especially deep blue states like MA and NY - will cough it up.
* All to pay for a hoax.
Have I got this right?
8
Yep! And remember the red states don't want too much federal interference in their lives but I'll bet there are almost no GOP Republicans who will refuse federal assistance to rebuild. You're responsible for yourself (that old pull myself up by my own work and no one helped GOP tune) until you aren't, or in this case you can't.
I Agree with you---- isn't it too bad that the Republicans led by Trump don't have some realization of the trend s in our weather patterns before it's too late .
1
Strongly denying human-induced global warming, Trump said: "I believe in weather. It goes up, it goes down."
I guess in Houston, it went up.
But the fast-motion video, available here at the NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/hurricane-harvey-texas...®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region#tracker
of Harvey's clouds dramatically roiling up over the Gulf of Mexico shows something not fairly called mere "weather." It shows a tropical storm swiftly sucking up trillions of gallons of water from a HOT Gulf of Mexico.
And that is not just weather "going up." It's global warming of the oceans, well documented, and new.
Trump is wrong. Harvey proves it.
I guess in Houston, it went up.
But the fast-motion video, available here at the NY Times
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/24/us/hurricane-harvey-texas...®ion=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region#tracker
of Harvey's clouds dramatically roiling up over the Gulf of Mexico shows something not fairly called mere "weather." It shows a tropical storm swiftly sucking up trillions of gallons of water from a HOT Gulf of Mexico.
And that is not just weather "going up." It's global warming of the oceans, well documented, and new.
Trump is wrong. Harvey proves it.
7
I hate to point it out, but, ironically, Texas profits the most from oil. I guess they can use some of those profits to pay for this damage. Obviously, these storms are intensified by the warmth of the seas.
7
Don't you understand, Mister Leonhardt, the phrase "Climate Change" has been deleted from the Republican vocabulary, unless it's to deny its existence, and call it a hoax. Just take a look at the GOP in its current state of deviancy. They nominated a complete fool to be their standard bearer, knowing Trump was not qualified to be dog catcher let alone president. They did not care. For Republicans, it was all about the winning. Well, by hook and crook and a dysfunctional and outdated Electoral College, they won, and in doing so, America lost as well as the world. They should be ashamed to show their faces during this disaster, especially the piously pontificating Cruz. How someone with such an exceptional educational background could be so darn stupid is simply incomprehensible.
Houston for decades became a boom town, a prime example of what occurs when communities are allowed to grow way beyond their means and with complete disregard for the environmental impact on such growth. Houston has long been a bath tub ready for just the perfect storm to show how ill-prepared it is to handle such disasters. There is nothing to be done now. Texas leadership failed the people miserably. That is what happens when you put people in positions they have no experience in. What Trump has so far destroyed is just the tip of the iceberg. More to come from this dumbbell to be sure.
DD
Manhattan
Houston for decades became a boom town, a prime example of what occurs when communities are allowed to grow way beyond their means and with complete disregard for the environmental impact on such growth. Houston has long been a bath tub ready for just the perfect storm to show how ill-prepared it is to handle such disasters. There is nothing to be done now. Texas leadership failed the people miserably. That is what happens when you put people in positions they have no experience in. What Trump has so far destroyed is just the tip of the iceberg. More to come from this dumbbell to be sure.
DD
Manhattan
5
Houston was doomed, but they deregulated the need to avoid nonpermeable surfaces. No natural drainage means the water only sits where it lands.
Houston is hopefully going to be the sad lesson that our build at any cost is always at the mercy of nature and climate. It's a bit ironic that Galveston was the big center for many years but when destroyed by that massive hurricane people went up a bit north and Houston became the center. Guess Dallas is next?
Houston is hopefully going to be the sad lesson that our build at any cost is always at the mercy of nature and climate. It's a bit ironic that Galveston was the big center for many years but when destroyed by that massive hurricane people went up a bit north and Houston became the center. Guess Dallas is next?
Texas: Climate change is not real. Bring it on!
Nature: Oh, it's already been broughten!
Nature: Oh, it's already been broughten!
2
Trump believes the rest of the world has been laughing at us. So he pulls out of the Paris Accord, and now a climate change exacerbated event. The laughing continues, Mr. President, and it's on you.
4
The chief denier is coming to town, whoopee! A freak of nature he'll say, and then look at himself in the mirror. His followers, who have locked up their minds, will hoot-n-holler. The truth, that climate change is here and we are the responsible party is clear to most people everywhere on this tiny little speck of dust. We will either deal with our self-inflicted wound or die from it. The universe won't care.
4
Human caused? Absolutely. Human caused by rampant over population. Our propensity to reproduce ad infinitum is pushing the earth to the brink. Want to protect the planet? Stop pushing out spawn. In this instance, humans are no different than cock roaches.
3
Donald Trump exited the Paris Climate Accord. Donald Trump apparently reversed an executive order of Obama's that required cities/states to start bringing infrastructure up to date to deal with the ravages of climate change to coastal cities. The republicans deny climate change and stand by while their man tramples on the constitution; stand by while our institutions that hold this democracy together ; and stand by while Trump gives the finger to the rule of law and pardons a man who ran concentration camps.
Bottom Line:They are collaborators with Trump. This was their dream too. Once Mitch McConnell denied Merrick Garland a hearing and vote, the floodgates opened. No pun intended. In walks a Fascist!
Sea levels along the east coast have risen dramatically over the past five years. The waters have warmed considerably. Parts of Miami go underwater with every high tide. Houston is a horror story. The pictures are beginning to show the true story. Everyone appears calm, especially the media, who tell the story in specific, coded language to avoid the obvious cause of this. In the debates of 2016, the media never asked one question on Climate Change. The denial is pathological and criminal.
Once the storm clears moves out, all hell will break loose. We've never seen anything like this. The country's 4th largest city has been largely washed away, even in affluent neighborhoods. Well, whatdayaknow??!! Mother Nature could care less how much money you have!!
WE WERE WARNED!!!
Bottom Line:They are collaborators with Trump. This was their dream too. Once Mitch McConnell denied Merrick Garland a hearing and vote, the floodgates opened. No pun intended. In walks a Fascist!
Sea levels along the east coast have risen dramatically over the past five years. The waters have warmed considerably. Parts of Miami go underwater with every high tide. Houston is a horror story. The pictures are beginning to show the true story. Everyone appears calm, especially the media, who tell the story in specific, coded language to avoid the obvious cause of this. In the debates of 2016, the media never asked one question on Climate Change. The denial is pathological and criminal.
Once the storm clears moves out, all hell will break loose. We've never seen anything like this. The country's 4th largest city has been largely washed away, even in affluent neighborhoods. Well, whatdayaknow??!! Mother Nature could care less how much money you have!!
WE WERE WARNED!!!
5
Even in the most obvious situations, people will deny climate change who feel that acknowledging it will be counter to their immediate financial interests and disrupt their worldview and lifestyle. We lived for seven years in a rural area of Oregon with big shallow lakes before moving back to a city. Every year, the lake, which had froze over all winter for eons, would freeze for shorter periods until it froze for only 2 weeks. People still would not attribute it to climate change because they reject any idea that may have environmental overtones. To do so, might infringe on their cattle businesses or some other sacred 'right.'
Now, we live in a progressive college town in Oregon that is close to the Cascade Mountains. This week has had DEQ warnings of 'very dangerous' air quality due to forest fire smoke. Forest fires are now occurring all year and have become hotter and bigger. The main reason is climate change because spring has come earlier and fall later so the warm season is prolonged and there is decreasing snowpack so the forests become tinder dry. Oregon's contribution in the fight against climate change should be focused on forest carbon capture but that would disrupt the forest industry so climate change talk is hushed. It's not just fossil fuel companies, it's almost all industries who are cloaking the issue. Especially with Trump but even with a neoliberal market economy, making money rules even if all life on Earth suffers.
Now, we live in a progressive college town in Oregon that is close to the Cascade Mountains. This week has had DEQ warnings of 'very dangerous' air quality due to forest fire smoke. Forest fires are now occurring all year and have become hotter and bigger. The main reason is climate change because spring has come earlier and fall later so the warm season is prolonged and there is decreasing snowpack so the forests become tinder dry. Oregon's contribution in the fight against climate change should be focused on forest carbon capture but that would disrupt the forest industry so climate change talk is hushed. It's not just fossil fuel companies, it's almost all industries who are cloaking the issue. Especially with Trump but even with a neoliberal market economy, making money rules even if all life on Earth suffers.
3
Very fine writing and argument, David. As you write here, we have created the perfect statistical storm. As ocean temperature rises, the likelihood of devastating storms increases, and it is accompanied by the growth of a population into an area that builds and paves in order to accommodate them. Statistically, there is a higher probability of disaster... without any one event being tied causally to global warming.
We'll put money into Houston. But what if this next storm that is now brewing from the Cape Verde Islands hits an already flood-prone Miami in the same way Harvey hit the Gulf? That will be yet another outlay of funds for those people.
Maybe two disasters next to each other will be enough to wake Trump and his followers from their thoughtless coma.
We'll put money into Houston. But what if this next storm that is now brewing from the Cape Verde Islands hits an already flood-prone Miami in the same way Harvey hit the Gulf? That will be yet another outlay of funds for those people.
Maybe two disasters next to each other will be enough to wake Trump and his followers from their thoughtless coma.
"Out of an abundance of academic caution — a caution that is in many ways admirable — scientists (and journalists) have obscured climate change’s true effects. We don’t display the same fussiness in other important areas."
Even a late step in the right direction is better than no step at all. It's way past time for responsible journalists in major publications to stop playing word games and start educating. And calling out politicians for their ignorance or politics on the issue. The climate IS changing - that can't be denied. And whether or not you believe humans have caused it, humans certainly can take steps to slow it down and lessen the impacts - which is a benefit to all of us, no matter our race, creed or color. Or income. Or the letter that comes after our name on the ballot.
Even a late step in the right direction is better than no step at all. It's way past time for responsible journalists in major publications to stop playing word games and start educating. And calling out politicians for their ignorance or politics on the issue. The climate IS changing - that can't be denied. And whether or not you believe humans have caused it, humans certainly can take steps to slow it down and lessen the impacts - which is a benefit to all of us, no matter our race, creed or color. Or income. Or the letter that comes after our name on the ballot.
2
If ever there was a need for R & D to develop innovative ways to decrease the carbon levels contributing to things like Harvey, it is now. The Paris Accord, the actions by other countries - and this country - seem to be too little too late. Carbon is being released by melting glaciers, warming seas, melting permafrost - all at greater rates than predicted, if you believe most scientists. The Inconvenient truths that Al Gore and others are telling us may indeed be true, but err possibly in their most dire prediction of "when" and how much time we have. It may be too late for conventional means. Yes, we need to do all we can to decrease emissions. But we need more. We need a WWII like focus on developing our ability to "capture" carbon - every state, every city, every town, every home, every family, every individual. Yankee ingenuity gone wild. Capture the carbon before it goes skyward. Cool the seas, save the planet.
2
"But it’s time to shed some of the fussy over-precision about the relationship between climate change and weather."
Finally! We are at a time when every extreme weather event, every drought, every famine, every forest fire, every flood around the world should be examined and analyzed in the light of climate change. We should also examine the resulting human behavior, from migrations to war. Houstonians on the news are talking about leaving Houston and moving elsewhere. That is weather-related migration right here in the US.
If we don't analyze these events for what they are, we will continue to be unprepared as things get worse.
Finally! We are at a time when every extreme weather event, every drought, every famine, every forest fire, every flood around the world should be examined and analyzed in the light of climate change. We should also examine the resulting human behavior, from migrations to war. Houstonians on the news are talking about leaving Houston and moving elsewhere. That is weather-related migration right here in the US.
If we don't analyze these events for what they are, we will continue to be unprepared as things get worse.
2
The problem is not the precision of the models, it is the accuracy. Since the Chinese are on track to bring their citizens to 20th century living standards by burning coal, along with the rest of undeveloped Asia, the logical solution is for Americans to focus on adaptation to the fact that even of the developed world were to stop using fossil fuels immediately, the manmade contributions to atmospheric CO2 will be five to eight times the 2005 contributions.
I completely agree. But we cannot adapt unless we have taken the time to understand specifically what we have to adapt to. I don't have much confidence anymore that we can save humanity from this in the long term - we are too late - but we can adapt in the short term if we think it through thereby making the trauma less severe, at least for a while.
How is it that the far more deadly Galveston Hurricane of 1900, which inundated the entire city and left 6,000-12,000 dead, was not caused by CO2 emissions?
1
They didn't have any warning, for one thing. No national weather service in those days. More importantly, the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 was a true outlier event. Just like the worst blizzard (1888) to ever hit this country and the coldest winter on record (1789). Once these sort of events really were "100 year" events. Now we have had three "100 year" events (Katrina, Sandy, Harvey) in the 21st century and we haven't even hit the quarter mark. Things are changing. Please understand that.
4
Because it wasn't. The Galveston storm of 1900 was a statistical outlier (the high death toll can be attributed to lack of good forecasts and warning at the time). You seem to be willfully missing the point of Leonhardt's argument: CO2 emissions and the associated rise in ocean temperature lead to an increased LIKELIHOOD of destructive hurricanes. When this happens outliers are no longer outliers--they become the new normal. It's not a hard concept. Holding up the Galveston as some sort of rebuttal is nonsense.
Hu....because warning systems, weather forecasts, building codes, rescue operations, infrastructure, etc. were considerably less sophisticated than we have today.
1
How long before the anti-climate change luddites realize they are wrong? By then we will have passed the point of no return. Secretary of the Interior Zinke has ordered the BLM to stop doing what they normally do like giving access to millions of American users on BLM land, and focus on giving out as many oil/gas leases as possible as fast as they can.
I truly feel sorry for southern Texans, we are right next door. I wonder, though, if this weather catastrophe happened in California, the evangelicals in Texas would just say it was an act of god punishing California for its acceptance of LGBTQ and women's choice?
I truly feel sorry for southern Texans, we are right next door. I wonder, though, if this weather catastrophe happened in California, the evangelicals in Texas would just say it was an act of god punishing California for its acceptance of LGBTQ and women's choice?
2
The effects of global warming are amplified by poor urban design. I was watching videos of the flood: nothing but low-rise sprawl as far as the eye can see. Low urban density requires extensive use of cars (the concept of public transportation, I'm sure, ranks as one of the seven deadly sins in the mind of pious Texans). So you have a vicious circle: more cars, more emissions, more sprawl, more cars. I am a firm believer in science and technology. We can solve the climate change challenge with technology and social engineering. But for this you need an educated population that believes in science. I'm afraid this rules out most of the US which is fated to suffer more tragedies, such as Harvey. Let's hope that other countries will show us the way.
4
Thank you, Mr. Leonhardt. Clear and to the point. Humans helping each other is inspiring; let's do that on a policy and planning level, too.
6
The lack of zoning laws is the result of a belief that the fewer the regulations that a government puts in place the better it is for everybody. And on the surface, that is the idea behind Republican efforts to stem efforts to stop climate change as well.
Now we have a government that is backing off environmental regulations of all kinds, with the belief that what is good for big oil is the ultimate good. And if the government defaults, there will be no more Federal bailouts of drowned cities.
Dylan was right. A hard rain is gonna fall, and keep falling because our leaders are all headed in the wrong direction.
Now we have a government that is backing off environmental regulations of all kinds, with the belief that what is good for big oil is the ultimate good. And if the government defaults, there will be no more Federal bailouts of drowned cities.
Dylan was right. A hard rain is gonna fall, and keep falling because our leaders are all headed in the wrong direction.
4
Harvey is not the only storm that humans helped cause. There are many others. We created the storms of World War I and II. We faced the storm of Russian Communism and hegemony across Eastern Europe. We supported the storm of the Intifada and Apartheid of South Africa. We made the storms of Yemen, Somalia, Lebanon, Syria and Afghanistan. We made the storm of slash and burn that destroys vast swaths of oxygen creating jungles of Africa and South America. The storm and devastating effects of cocaine and heroin are man made. So is the storm of injustice on Riker's Island an Attica. The storm of poverty is unending as is the storm of terrorism. The storm of racial injustice and the imposition of segregation continues daily. We face a daily storm of tweets from a feckless and immature president. The eye of that storm is ever present over Washington DC. There are storms of disease, and storms of ignorance and storms of despair. There is a storm brewing in North Korea and in Pakistan and India.
The American storm is not over but it is weakening. The next storm on Wall Street is also coming our way and the warning clouds of that catastrophic event can easily be seen as deregulation looms. There are ghettos across our nation and the festering clouds over those communities are becoming darker.
Yes, humans help create Harvey and more. We even created the mother of all storms that daily tweets its strange existence. Harvey is small. More powerful storms are on the horizon. We helped.
The American storm is not over but it is weakening. The next storm on Wall Street is also coming our way and the warning clouds of that catastrophic event can easily be seen as deregulation looms. There are ghettos across our nation and the festering clouds over those communities are becoming darker.
Yes, humans help create Harvey and more. We even created the mother of all storms that daily tweets its strange existence. Harvey is small. More powerful storms are on the horizon. We helped.
6
"Wasn't that a mighty storm/blew all the people all away..." Sin-Killer Griffin, 1915, on the Galveston Flood.
1
A divided America is a flooded America. We can only guess how the game ends.
2
The climate change deniers will seize on the term "500 year event" to ignore the long term. It will take a lot more to move Republicans,
4
Well, if we get another 500 year event when this next hurricane comes, they might acquire some understanding of the effects of climatology on themselves.
The cost of climate change denial is enormous. Until the bought-off politicians are thrown out of office, the media can help by calling a spade a spade. No more couching and hedging and equating in an abundance of caution. It is way past time for caution. It is time for truth to reemerge as our most precious capital resource. We the people need to start demanding it. We can start by rewarding our brave journalists that rip off the cloak the deniers have been hiding under.
9
I think we all know what terminology this journal would be using were the Houston Mayor a white man. But unlike the decrepit, rancid and eternally corrupt parish of New Orleans, this town has competent civil defense officials, emergency plans in place and coordination between responders that NO lacked. Too bad. Were the locals as incompetent as those in low Louisiana, this paper and it's lemmings could once again blame a Republican administration for the utter failure of local "leaders". So transparent. So facile. So disposible a news outlet.
2
And Houston also has a better FEMA unlike in Katrina. And, don't worry, Texas is going to get the federal government funds that it desperately needs.
The emotional content of your post destroys your argument. @Jane, you are accusing people in NO of being "eternally vile and corrupt" (do you have a religions vision of eternity, @Jane?), and you say that Houston has "competent, civil defense officials", but, ya know what? I'm seeing lots of people in the water and on rooftops in Houston, @Jane. If this is competence, @Jane, then you have failed to make your argument, emotional as it is.
And they still have to figure out how to drain those reservoirs in Houston, @Jane. It destroys your argument about competence. And as competent as Houston's officials are, they need vast federal involvement. You need to competently revise your argument.
The emotional content of your post destroys your argument. @Jane, you are accusing people in NO of being "eternally vile and corrupt" (do you have a religions vision of eternity, @Jane?), and you say that Houston has "competent, civil defense officials", but, ya know what? I'm seeing lots of people in the water and on rooftops in Houston, @Jane. If this is competence, @Jane, then you have failed to make your argument, emotional as it is.
And they still have to figure out how to drain those reservoirs in Houston, @Jane. It destroys your argument about competence. And as competent as Houston's officials are, they need vast federal involvement. You need to competently revise your argument.
1
Houston, we have a problem, a problem that has been decades in the making. Poor leadership by Red State redneck Republicans have help lead Houston down this road to perdition. This is what happens when deniers of Science are allowed to rule. They run rampant over any sense of engineering, environmental impacts on their penchant for unlimited growth. This is what happens when politicians let profit-making madmen have better sway than scientists. This is what occurs when a poorly educated electorate keep putting these no-minds in office. The eyes of the world are upon Texas, and what they see is a complete disregard for the laws of nature. They see a people who are so caught up in making an Almighty buck holding common sense at bay. Something is drastically wrong here. I have the greatest of sympathy for the poor people of Texas and Louisiana. I have none for the leaders elected there. They have sold-out their people for thirty pieces of silver. They have no decency.
DD
Manhattan
DD
Manhattan
12
It isn't just pavement, but the loss, by grading and compaction, of what was pasture or prairie, with high absorptive capacity, to create suburban lawns which are no more than a layer of nursery sod over hardpan.
Not only do subdivisions greatly exacerbate runoff, but their storm drains are designed based on "historic" rainfall patterns, which have become largely irrelevant.
Houston also resisted implementation of an ACE study to update the evaluation of flood plains based on current date.
Private profit, public cost: a major vector of inequality today.
Not only do subdivisions greatly exacerbate runoff, but their storm drains are designed based on "historic" rainfall patterns, which have become largely irrelevant.
Houston also resisted implementation of an ACE study to update the evaluation of flood plains based on current date.
Private profit, public cost: a major vector of inequality today.
6
The high population sucks water out of aquifers faster than the now waterproof surface can replenish it, which causes the land to sink. Wetlands, which used to buffer flooding and give a pathway out have been filled in and or eroded.
They got more rain than predicted. They will clean up and rebuild to better standards that will give them better resiliency. They can do so because Texas is a rich state from fossil fuel productivity, even with depressed oil and gas prices.
There is less income and wealth inequality in Texas than there is in blue states.
They got more rain than predicted. They will clean up and rebuild to better standards that will give them better resiliency. They can do so because Texas is a rich state from fossil fuel productivity, even with depressed oil and gas prices.
There is less income and wealth inequality in Texas than there is in blue states.
So, you're for population control? Good.
Texas' wealth has been a driver of these flood causes and effects. You really think they'll restore their prairies & wetlands and relocate population to less vulnerable areas?
Like they did after the 2015 floods?
https://projects.propublica.org/houston-cypress/
Texas' wealth has been a driver of these flood causes and effects. You really think they'll restore their prairies & wetlands and relocate population to less vulnerable areas?
Like they did after the 2015 floods?
https://projects.propublica.org/houston-cypress/
Well said, as usual by Mr. Leonhardt. Over the last 20 years at least the Time has published similarly persuasive and accurate pieces. The conundrum lies in getting this message across to the sadly unpersuaded individuals in our country. How do we do that?
2
"Scientific reticence" is too mushy a term to describe climate change skeptics. How about "scientific obstinance." Deniers all hold one thought process in mind: unless they see absolutely incontrovertible evidence, with no room for even the slightest doubt, then there's no reason to worry about it.
Such thinking has in the past led to religious and ethnic persecution, war, pandemics and other assorted evils. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jews are not soulless anti-Christians; unless there is valid scientific proof that the Black Plague was caused by infected rats; unless you can prove absolutely that the Big Bang happened or that evolution really does explain the development of species, then there is no reason to even consider that your opinion might be horribly, insanely wrong.
Climate change denial is a quintessential expression of willful ignorance, because ultimately, no "proof" will be satisfactory to those who do not want to accept reality.
Such thinking has in the past led to religious and ethnic persecution, war, pandemics and other assorted evils. Unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jews are not soulless anti-Christians; unless there is valid scientific proof that the Black Plague was caused by infected rats; unless you can prove absolutely that the Big Bang happened or that evolution really does explain the development of species, then there is no reason to even consider that your opinion might be horribly, insanely wrong.
Climate change denial is a quintessential expression of willful ignorance, because ultimately, no "proof" will be satisfactory to those who do not want to accept reality.
6
Texas has more than its share of climate deniers. I wonder what they think now. And I wonder whether all those rugged Republican individualists who voted against aid for Hurricane Sandy's victims still think they don't need the federal government or, worse yet, still want to secede.
4
The Sandy bill had $8 billion in aid to the East Coast and $36 billion in unrelated pork, which the Democrats and RINOs demanded in exchange for their generosity. Although they were unsuccessful in stopping the pork, it did take courage for Republican patriots to attempt to counter the leftist propaganda.
You, for example, keenly recall that Republicans from Texas objected. You have conveniently forgotten that their objection was not to helping NY and NJ in their time of need but to squandering $36 billion on crony wish lists. Propaganda is effective in swaying the gullible. The suffering East Coasters got $8 billion. The wealthy 1% got $36 billion in gravy. Progressive math. Convince the masses were on their side while doling out favors to our campaign contributors and people prepared to cut us, our families and friends in for their government funded projects.
You, for example, keenly recall that Republicans from Texas objected. You have conveniently forgotten that their objection was not to helping NY and NJ in their time of need but to squandering $36 billion on crony wish lists. Propaganda is effective in swaying the gullible. The suffering East Coasters got $8 billion. The wealthy 1% got $36 billion in gravy. Progressive math. Convince the masses were on their side while doling out favors to our campaign contributors and people prepared to cut us, our families and friends in for their government funded projects.
Thank you for connecting the dots in a way that so many fear and fail to do. We cannot continue to pump our atmosphere full of greenhouse gases and then act shocked by the consequences, which include heavier rainfall. I know here in Georgia, it seems that lately, when it rains it really pours. I had already noticed this when I first heard the term "rain bombs" in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Sequel. It struck a chord.
No more denying it, deniers. Please set aside your willful ignorance and help the U.S. find the political will to take action on the issue of climate change.
No more denying it, deniers. Please set aside your willful ignorance and help the U.S. find the political will to take action on the issue of climate change.
2
Learn something about science from someone with knowledge of science rather than from Al Gore. What Al Gore knows about global warming is that his wealth has increased by hundreds of millions of dollars selling snake oil. He has a carbon footprint at least 50 times that of the median American household. He bought a mansion on the coast [to add to his others] despite his stated belief that the coasts are going to be flooded by rising sea levels.
It would be fascinating to hear his explanation of the UN recommendation that global warming will be reduced if the developed world gives $100 billion per year to the autocratic leaders of the third world, after skimming off their overhead. You really have to love the representation that the IPPC report is scientific when that is one of the scientific conclusions.
A thoughtful rational person would assess the situation as follows: There is evidence that there are climate changes taking place. Nothing the developed world can do is going to prevent China from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere by 2030 than mankind has added since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Annual additions in 2030 will be 5-8 times those of 2005. The Paris reductions reduce the 2100 temp by 0.3 degrees.
Forget about burdening the industrialized world with trillions in cost. Focus on a strong growing economy that will be able to create technological solutions. Instead of investing in the coastal areas, relocate to the interior. Adapt.
It would be fascinating to hear his explanation of the UN recommendation that global warming will be reduced if the developed world gives $100 billion per year to the autocratic leaders of the third world, after skimming off their overhead. You really have to love the representation that the IPPC report is scientific when that is one of the scientific conclusions.
A thoughtful rational person would assess the situation as follows: There is evidence that there are climate changes taking place. Nothing the developed world can do is going to prevent China from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere by 2030 than mankind has added since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Annual additions in 2030 will be 5-8 times those of 2005. The Paris reductions reduce the 2100 temp by 0.3 degrees.
Forget about burdening the industrialized world with trillions in cost. Focus on a strong growing economy that will be able to create technological solutions. Instead of investing in the coastal areas, relocate to the interior. Adapt.
Will President Trump, the successful billionaire, make a huge donation to the Red Cross as an example to all Americans? Perhaps a half million?
3
Will George Soros, who is profiting from selling coal to Europe and China after having bought up coal assets at pennies on the dollar after his friend
Obama tried to drive them out of business with his war on coal?
Will Tom Steyer, who made his fortune as a hedge fund manager trading coal and fossil fuel assets? He didn't even sell his coal assets until after his career change to "philanthropist" when he started positioning himself to run for office as a Democrat. He still has substantial fossil fuel holdings, which he's not going to sell because they are profitable.
Both are funding the global warming narrative because there's money to be made for them.
Trump made his money in real estate deals, not in fossil fuels. Let the Democrat oligarchs who are profiting from coal and fossil fuels make a tribute payment to Houston.
Obama tried to drive them out of business with his war on coal?
Will Tom Steyer, who made his fortune as a hedge fund manager trading coal and fossil fuel assets? He didn't even sell his coal assets until after his career change to "philanthropist" when he started positioning himself to run for office as a Democrat. He still has substantial fossil fuel holdings, which he's not going to sell because they are profitable.
Both are funding the global warming narrative because there's money to be made for them.
Trump made his money in real estate deals, not in fossil fuels. Let the Democrat oligarchs who are profiting from coal and fossil fuels make a tribute payment to Houston.
--didn't the area covered by the flooding vote overwhelmingly for trump?
--climate change is a myth isn't it?
--this is all your imagination.
--it's all fake news.
--like sandy hook, this is a fake story manufactured by the lying media.
--climate change is a myth isn't it?
--this is all your imagination.
--it's all fake news.
--like sandy hook, this is a fake story manufactured by the lying media.
3
Dallas, Austin and Houston went for Hillary. Don't let reality interfere with your belief system. Disregard and facts that don't fit in your worldview.
Believe that reducing the 2100 temperature by 0.1 degree is worth half a trillion dollars per year for Americans in increased taxes, energy cost and reduced GDP.
Believe that the federal taxpayer should pay for the mass transit system in NYC rather than spending money to relocate the people away from low lying areas. Let NYC continue to dump wastewater effluent and raw sewage into the navigable waters of America. Fish in the rivers surrounding NYC and eat the fish. Surely in an environmentally conscious region under Democrat control for decades, the natural resources would be sacred and clean. While you are at it, breathe the air in NYC which will bring memories of pristine mountain breezes.
Believe that reducing the 2100 temperature by 0.1 degree is worth half a trillion dollars per year for Americans in increased taxes, energy cost and reduced GDP.
Believe that the federal taxpayer should pay for the mass transit system in NYC rather than spending money to relocate the people away from low lying areas. Let NYC continue to dump wastewater effluent and raw sewage into the navigable waters of America. Fish in the rivers surrounding NYC and eat the fish. Surely in an environmentally conscious region under Democrat control for decades, the natural resources would be sacred and clean. While you are at it, breathe the air in NYC which will bring memories of pristine mountain breezes.
Lung cancer and drunk driving fatalities became recognized as threats and taken seriously when they began happening everywhere. Now that climate-related disasters are happening everywhere, maybe they will be taken seriously. But it is probably too late. You can decrease future cancers, and perhaps you can decrease future storms, but that does not happen overnight. And, of course, the Republicans are in power, and a basic plank in their credo is to deny that climate change exists. Even in Texas, with the waters lapping at their doors.
2
This guy does real damage to the "cause" when in one breath he says that warming causes heavier rainfall and in the next he attributes drought to climate change. Anyone who has yet to join the climate change cult just rolls their eyes and says, "another NYT writer looking to get praise at cocktail parties." If you want the country to pour massive amounts of wealth into your pet projects so that you can scrape some for yourself, you've got to start making better arguments.
The climate is immensely complicated. If you're so confident in the ability of humans to predict the behavior of large systems with an infinite number of variables, you should raise a bunch of money for climate change causes, develop a model that can predict the stock market (much simpler than predicting climate change, or factors that will lessen its effects), multiply your investment by 100x, and "solve" climate change.
Why hasn't anyone done this? Because humans aren't good at predicting effects on large, complex systems - like financial markets, and the climate. And almost all climate crusaders are in it for an emotional fix rather than objective problem solving.
The climate is immensely complicated. If you're so confident in the ability of humans to predict the behavior of large systems with an infinite number of variables, you should raise a bunch of money for climate change causes, develop a model that can predict the stock market (much simpler than predicting climate change, or factors that will lessen its effects), multiply your investment by 100x, and "solve" climate change.
Why hasn't anyone done this? Because humans aren't good at predicting effects on large, complex systems - like financial markets, and the climate. And almost all climate crusaders are in it for an emotional fix rather than objective problem solving.
2
Well, here's modeling that very much shows the specifics of changing climate and the human role in same: Christidis, N., P.A. Stott, and S.J. Brown, 2011: The Role of Human Activity in the Recent Warming of Extremely Warm Daytime Temperatures. J. Climate, 24, 1922–1930, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JCLI4150.1 The primary literature on this is enormous, so I'm happy to suggest other scientific studies that are part of the steady drip-drip-drip that has led to our current scientific certainty on these matters.
2
JR, I take issue with several of your points. First, flooding and drought are not mutually exclusive - google "flood-drought cycle" and learn a bit about it. Second, just because we can't predict something with complete accuracy doesn't mean we can't predict trends. I don't know if you read this entire piece or not, but the author uses several compelling examples including the inability to definitely predict smoking leading to lung cancer in any given individual. In a complex system, we have no choice but to rely on statistics to inform our judgement, and that is *exactly* what the people who know what they're talking about have been doing when raising the alarm about climate change. Finally, your characterization of almost all "climate crusaders" being "in it" for an emotional fix...well, I don't even know what that means. I personally would love it if someone could prove to me tomorrow that climate change is not being caused and/or exacerbated by human activity. I would sleep better at night, and I would stop feeling guilty when I engage in activities that I know are contributing to the problem. I could stop devoting my personal time to efforts to raise awareness and bring about the political will to deal with the problem. And on that note, I will close with a plug for an objective solution to the problem: revenue neutral carbon fee and dividend.
1
Please actually read some of that science, starting with some of the excellent information provided by other replies to your post. Your statements reveal a woeful ignorance of the issue, the basic criteria of all the deniers.
1
While I have sympathy for the unfortunate people who have lost their homes, they should not be allowed to rebuild in low-lying areas. It seems that insurance companies, and especially the federal flood insurance program, would and should prevent that.
I grew up in a house near a creek that drains into the Brazos River. The house, and the entire neighborhood, had been built in the post-war 1940's. The house was 3 feet off the ground in front and at least 6 feet off the ground in back, since the lot had a gentle slope toward the creek which was at least 120 feet away. All houses in the neighborhood were similarly high, even those not close to the creek. The creek topped its banks a few times but never came near the house, though snakes escaping the floodwaters did.
Now the snakes have taken over - snakes in human form, who value greed over humanity, history, and even common sense. Newer houses in that area have been built near ground level, with insurance expected to reimburse any losses. Insurance is a communal arrangement; we all fund the losses, and we should not reimburse or reward stupidity.
I grew up in a house near a creek that drains into the Brazos River. The house, and the entire neighborhood, had been built in the post-war 1940's. The house was 3 feet off the ground in front and at least 6 feet off the ground in back, since the lot had a gentle slope toward the creek which was at least 120 feet away. All houses in the neighborhood were similarly high, even those not close to the creek. The creek topped its banks a few times but never came near the house, though snakes escaping the floodwaters did.
Now the snakes have taken over - snakes in human form, who value greed over humanity, history, and even common sense. Newer houses in that area have been built near ground level, with insurance expected to reimburse any losses. Insurance is a communal arrangement; we all fund the losses, and we should not reimburse or reward stupidity.
5
Brace yourselves for some world-class, Olympic scale hypocrisy coming out of Senators Cruz and Cornyn when they slither to the federal trough and appeal to the very same Americans they have spited under similar conditions, i.e. Sandy, etc.
Or maybe they won't. Since Houston votes Democratic and against the Republican majority across the rest of the state, maybe they will spite those city dwellers they don't like. No, because there are still plenty of Houstonian Republican hypocrites to save so they can harvest their votes next time for their statewide elections.
Good Christians these.
Or maybe they won't. Since Houston votes Democratic and against the Republican majority across the rest of the state, maybe they will spite those city dwellers they don't like. No, because there are still plenty of Houstonian Republican hypocrites to save so they can harvest their votes next time for their statewide elections.
Good Christians these.
3
It's the 21st century. I can't believe humans haven't figured out how to control the weather by now.
1
Another lecture on a real problem, global warming, that doesn't mention nuclear power as mitigation. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-nuclear-power-can-stop-gl...
Thanks for a great column! It's been so frustrating to see the NYT run a story every day with the headline: "Whether climate change is to blame is less clear." Who needs Fox News when the NYT casts doubt on the obvious effects of climate change on this disaster? Thanks for telling it like it is, David Leonhardt!
3
When Trump gets to Texas today he can remind them that climate change is a Chinese hoax. The Texans will be so relieved.
2
I am a 74 year old Montana native who has never previously seen the kind of smokey conditions from forest fires that we have experienced these last few years. Events in Houston are even more devastating. These and many other unprecedented weather events have convinced me that man-caused Climate Change is playing a huge role. So, what to do?
We need to convert from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy sources as soon as possible! That would be wind, solar, and advanced nuclear reactors. Yes, ADVANCED nuclear reactors that can safely transform nuclear waste (i.e. spent nuclear fuel stored at nuclear power plants) into vast amounts of carbon-free electricity, destroying 95% of the incoming fuel in the process.
GE-Hitachi has such an advanced reactor called PRISM. Here is a direct quote from a company vice president who believes PRISM is: "a perfect solution for replacing coal fired boilers at existing power plants, providing clean, base load electricity that is available 24 hours a day."
David, you say you are looking for input. Well, you know how to contact me----- I have much more information on this Climate Change solution that could be fully implemented in the U.S within 20 years, thereby converting all coal-fired power plants to carbon free electricity production facilities----- saving many jobs as well.
We need to convert from fossil fuels to carbon-free energy sources as soon as possible! That would be wind, solar, and advanced nuclear reactors. Yes, ADVANCED nuclear reactors that can safely transform nuclear waste (i.e. spent nuclear fuel stored at nuclear power plants) into vast amounts of carbon-free electricity, destroying 95% of the incoming fuel in the process.
GE-Hitachi has such an advanced reactor called PRISM. Here is a direct quote from a company vice president who believes PRISM is: "a perfect solution for replacing coal fired boilers at existing power plants, providing clean, base load electricity that is available 24 hours a day."
David, you say you are looking for input. Well, you know how to contact me----- I have much more information on this Climate Change solution that could be fully implemented in the U.S within 20 years, thereby converting all coal-fired power plants to carbon free electricity production facilities----- saving many jobs as well.
2
Climate deniers will always try to come up with excuses as to why Harvey, or any other storm isn't related to Climate Change. It's likened to the person who claims that their Grandfather smoked 20 cigars a day and lived to be 100. My question is "How long would that person have lived if they didn't smoke"?
2
Not to mention that if smoking cigarettes gives you a 99 out of 100 hundred chance of getting lung cancer, there will be a few smokers that don't get cancer. Deniers are saying we should bet our future existence on the planet on a 99 to 1 gamble. Currently we are taking that bet.
1
In every case when Leonhardf wrote "human activity", a more proper wording would have been "republican activity". Since the Clinton administration Democrats have attempted to initiate action that would ameliorated the harmful progression of climate change, only to be stymied by reactionary republican stonewalls. Whern will the millions of people that have been injured by the floods ,hurricanes.tornadoes and heat waves that have been made much worse by climate change vote for their health, wealth, and prosperity
No, Edcas, the Clinton Administration killed the most promising climate solution when he killed the Integral Fast Reactor program at Argonne West in Idaho in 1994.
Argonne built and tested an advanced pilot-scale reactor that has the potential to safely replace all fossil fuels within 20 years. It was ready for commercial scale demonstration when Al Gore and John Kerry led efforts to kill the program in 1994.
Argonne built and tested an advanced pilot-scale reactor that has the potential to safely replace all fossil fuels within 20 years. It was ready for commercial scale demonstration when Al Gore and John Kerry led efforts to kill the program in 1994.
1
It's only too obvious what's happening regarding global warming. Hottest summer on record; hurricane harvey. Only when those whose greed over rides their collective conscience, get on board and realize fighting climate change actually serves their own self interests, will we see real change.j Much is being done on state and local levels, but we need real leadership from our federal officials. This will only get worse.
But obviously Hurricane Harvey is a hoax perpetrated by the lamestream media.
Just like 9/11, the moon landing, and Sandy Hook.
Just like 9/11, the moon landing, and Sandy Hook.
I live in Ohio too; this is not even REMOTELY the hottest summer here -- not even in the top 10. In fact, as I type this, it is August and pleasant cool, with a gentle rain (we needed it!).
The exaggerations here are beyond paranoid. Yes, there is global warming. No, we can't stop it, because the planet now has 7.5 BILLION people on it, and nobody is willing to accept Zero Population Growth.
PEOPLE CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.
The exaggerations here are beyond paranoid. Yes, there is global warming. No, we can't stop it, because the planet now has 7.5 BILLION people on it, and nobody is willing to accept Zero Population Growth.
PEOPLE CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING.
It is interesting that the worst of the flooding is in the city that produces the fuel that caused the flooding. I think this is called justice. Justice by nature.
2
It's ironic wonder boy when the fuel that you said caused the proplem is powering the boats that are resueing people! Show some compassion and get off your high horse.Are you doing anything to help these people or just spouting off? Typical wonder boy!Make a donation to the Red Cross instead of going to Starbucks!
Herbert George Wells published a book in 1933 with a title that just about sums it up: "The Shape of Things to Come."
Americans, in particular those with an "R" after their names, would do well indeed to take to heart something Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson has said, “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
It should also be pointed out that nature has the last laugh. Always.
Americans, in particular those with an "R" after their names, would do well indeed to take to heart something Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson has said, “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”
It should also be pointed out that nature has the last laugh. Always.
5
It's not entirely accurate to blame climate change on "human-caused" activity. To be more specific, climate change and the morbidity of this planet and inhabitants is caused by the effects of the systemic, metastatic, cancerous business model of Capitalism *genuflect* with it's reliance on growth of profits at all costs.
The addiction of endless growth of profits through destruction and poisoning of resources has caused life-threatening imbalances. Major General Smedley Butler nailed it long ago when he tied wars to the global plunder and pillaging by capitalists and rightfully called it "racketeering", with the government enabling, overseeing, and subsidizing this destructive profiteering which threatens life on Earth.
Houston, we've got a problem.
We must turn those tables.
The addiction of endless growth of profits through destruction and poisoning of resources has caused life-threatening imbalances. Major General Smedley Butler nailed it long ago when he tied wars to the global plunder and pillaging by capitalists and rightfully called it "racketeering", with the government enabling, overseeing, and subsidizing this destructive profiteering which threatens life on Earth.
Houston, we've got a problem.
We must turn those tables.
3
It's not the nature of science to 'prove', since nearly everything is hypothesis awaiting a counterexample (1 + 1 = 2, until it doesn't)...
But reasonable people weigh the evidence against the risk and act.... 'deniers', of course, see risks of their own choosing, and value their interests above the common interest...
.... and so "not with a bang but with a whimper".... reinforced with lies and greed....
But reasonable people weigh the evidence against the risk and act.... 'deniers', of course, see risks of their own choosing, and value their interests above the common interest...
.... and so "not with a bang but with a whimper".... reinforced with lies and greed....
1
One of the great ironies of the present climate change debate is the impact of the Noah tale in our culture. In that tale the populace at the time ridiculed Noah for his extraordinary faith that a great flood was coming to destroy the sinful human race except for he and his family.
All non religious folks today probably scoff at the supposed truth of the Noah tale. Not so with the Fundamentalists among us, although they most probably believe that God's promise not to destroy humanity by a flood again is reliable.
Even if the Noah tale is a myth are we positioning ourselves with populace in the myth and their disbelief or with Noah and his great faith to act to save his family?
All non religious folks today probably scoff at the supposed truth of the Noah tale. Not so with the Fundamentalists among us, although they most probably believe that God's promise not to destroy humanity by a flood again is reliable.
Even if the Noah tale is a myth are we positioning ourselves with populace in the myth and their disbelief or with Noah and his great faith to act to save his family?
I would add to the list of examples of "scientific reticence" the relationship between the proliferation of guns and the scourge of gun-related deaths in the U.S.
2
David,
Thank you. I totally agree.
Thank you. I totally agree.
1
Really very simple, there are too many people. We are an infestation on this planet, we are so very successful and in the process have destroyed our habitat.
The only answer is to stop having children and that is not going to happen in time to save our habitat.
The word environment is over used and politically charged so I prefer to use habitat and hope people realize what is being destroyed is our ability to survive on this planet.
I feel so sorry for the children, their future will be terrible.
The only answer is to stop having children and that is not going to happen in time to save our habitat.
The word environment is over used and politically charged so I prefer to use habitat and hope people realize what is being destroyed is our ability to survive on this planet.
I feel so sorry for the children, their future will be terrible.
3
Global warming or climate change always seems to be the popular excuse for all natural disasters but I agree that population overload is the real root cause. Our Terra Mater is buckling under the weight of all these people advancing human made destruction at such a pace never seen before. Just switching to "clean energy" is not going to save us.
Technology is truly both the "creater and destroyer" of our evolving habitat. lt my be past the point when we can live "simply" enough and walk with footprints soft enough to save our habitat from humankind's many character and cultural defects.
Technology is truly both the "creater and destroyer" of our evolving habitat. lt my be past the point when we can live "simply" enough and walk with footprints soft enough to save our habitat from humankind's many character and cultural defects.
With the global-warming induced catastrophic flooding of Houston, maybe the Texas deniers who have been dispossessed can appropriate and settle on the new Island of Texas created when the 30 billion ton 2000 square mile iceberg the size of Delaware recently broke off from the Antarctic.
Follow the money - the tobacco companies denied the links between smoking and cancer even though they had the data, the liquor industry like the NRA implied that alcohol did not cause car wrecks people did, and as we now know for sure, the oil companies have had the data about the effects of carbon/oil on climate for years, but have lobbied and propagandized and denied for profit.
Our bought and paid for Congress has been in the pay of these industries and their behavior shows it.
Our bought and paid for Congress has been in the pay of these industries and their behavior shows it.
1
I agree with you. But as long as you're going to stop equivocating, please use the expression "global warming" rather than "climate change".
More species have gone extinct on this planet than currently inhabit it. I suspect humans are not immune to that fate. However, they will be the only species to have caused their extinction.
So now we will be asked to contribute our tax dollars to ameliorate this climate change disaster for the very American state that most vociferously denies its reality and acts politically against those of us who want to address climate change seriously. Texas should be treated like a child who should not be given his allowance until he promises to begin to act responsibly. The denial of climate reality by Texas and all of the Southern states is a danger to us all. Grown-up behavior must be expected of all of them henceforth.
1
david: thought where you might be going with this was "our" culpability as humans in over-developing in areas we shouldn't even be inhabiting, i.e. flood zones. When will we ever learn !
Interesting article. Can I suggest that there's another factor here which is the heuristic tendency to place less weight on things the further away they are in time. So climate change won't affect things anyway for another thirty years so I'll concentrate on more important things like putting food on the table or mowing the lawn type of thing. I'd suggest that awful as Harvey is, and it is awful, one very minor plus may be that it may make the threat seem more immediate so people will pay more attention to it?
I'm not saying that apart, possibly ,from the increased moisture it is climate change related, just that if the risk is perceived as more immediate (justified or not) people may treat it more seriously?
I'm not saying that apart, possibly ,from the increased moisture it is climate change related, just that if the risk is perceived as more immediate (justified or not) people may treat it more seriously?
1
I couldn't agree more.
People who are still hoping that all the proven science would nevertheless be wrong, simply because certain natural catastrophes continue to take place or have taken place hundreds of years ago without any clear causal link to climate change, are like those old uncles who are constantly coughing but when you inform them of the fact that a causal link has been proven between smoking in general, and dying from lung cancer, joyfully and mockingly (ah, those scientists who think they know everything better ... !) refers to a neighbor who has been smoking his entire life and died in a car incident.
And that's why it's SO hypocritical when Trump starts tweeting compassionate messages to the brave people of Houston. It's his JOB to inform the nation of proven threats. Instead, he doubled down on the old uncle argument during his declaration that he withdraws the US from the Paris accord.
The Paris accord, he said, would only lower temperatures by 0.2 °C by 2100, so it doesn't make any difference.
It's true that if the world respects the Paris accord BUT then does nothing from 2030 to 2100, it will only be .2 °C colder in 2100. But the only way to prevent a 2° C (TWO!) increase by 2100, is to start NOW, and then negotiate new accords for the decades after 2030.
So this is old uncle Trump arguing that IF treatment x cures his cancer in 100 days with a 85% probability, but if he would only take it on day 1 then he'd die anyhow, THEN it isn't worth taking..
People who are still hoping that all the proven science would nevertheless be wrong, simply because certain natural catastrophes continue to take place or have taken place hundreds of years ago without any clear causal link to climate change, are like those old uncles who are constantly coughing but when you inform them of the fact that a causal link has been proven between smoking in general, and dying from lung cancer, joyfully and mockingly (ah, those scientists who think they know everything better ... !) refers to a neighbor who has been smoking his entire life and died in a car incident.
And that's why it's SO hypocritical when Trump starts tweeting compassionate messages to the brave people of Houston. It's his JOB to inform the nation of proven threats. Instead, he doubled down on the old uncle argument during his declaration that he withdraws the US from the Paris accord.
The Paris accord, he said, would only lower temperatures by 0.2 °C by 2100, so it doesn't make any difference.
It's true that if the world respects the Paris accord BUT then does nothing from 2030 to 2100, it will only be .2 °C colder in 2100. But the only way to prevent a 2° C (TWO!) increase by 2100, is to start NOW, and then negotiate new accords for the decades after 2030.
So this is old uncle Trump arguing that IF treatment x cures his cancer in 100 days with a 85% probability, but if he would only take it on day 1 then he'd die anyhow, THEN it isn't worth taking..
Why aren't we regulating air flights? Planes are spewing atmospheric toxins at an alarming rate.
3
Because affluent lefty liberals adore nothing more than traveling, especially to Europe or Asia or anywhere exotic -- and they REFUSE to give that up.
Nope, the sacrifices must all be born by the white working class.
Nope, the sacrifices must all be born by the white working class.
Heat is energy. More heat, more energy.
I'm just waiting for the president to come out and say gays and lesbians are the cause of hurricanes. He seems enamored by the support of the religious right.
The division in this country is evident in the response to climate change. Liberal Democrats believe it's a problem. Conservative Republicans insist it's a hoax. Even educated Republicans who should be able to process the evidence presented by climate scientists are in denial about this issue. Their ideology trumps their intellect, rendering it useless. No solution to this problem is possible as long as we are politically polarized.
2
Far more dangerous than climate change are a president and political party who deny science. The greatest danger to the world today is power in the hands of people whose mission is to promote ignorance in the service of greed.
1
'But it’s time to shed some of the fussy over-precision about the relationship between climate change and weather.'
I agree. Moreover, it's time to shed some of the fussy over precision about the relationship between climate change and the ever increasing global population.
I agree. Moreover, it's time to shed some of the fussy over precision about the relationship between climate change and the ever increasing global population.
1
The effects of climate change are mostly related to quantitative aspects: how much rain, how strong the winds, how many $$ of damage. As long as those affect someone else, it's more difficult to accept our own role in creating the problem. Yes, there was a catastrophic loss of life when a hurricane hit Galveston at the turn of the 19th century and that was long before the effects of CO2 began to be measurable. The causes of the fatalities were not due to rainfall but to storm surge and relatively flimsy construction. They are not comparable events. Yet I have seen more than one person cite Galveston as a refutation of the effects of global warming on Harvey. Long live whataboutism.
2
The biggest problem I have with the climate change deniers is they offer no viable alternative logical reason to the massive changes occurring in the environment, and general weather patterns. They are certain climate change is a "hoax," but when catastrophic events happen, such as Harvey or Hurricane Matthew less than one year ago, they offer nothing except to stand firmly with their belief that none of this is the result of climate change.
But from what I am reading of comments on other news sources, they are in good company from a not to small portion of the population who is pathologically uninformed or just in denial. There are people who seem to think Katrina was the last hurricane to hit the US, and since that was 12 years ago proves that climate change is not the cause, these things just happen from time to time. And many don't realize that storm systems change as they develop and progress. Matthew, for example started as a tropical storm, then progressed into a hurricane. Over 600 people died, including nearly 50 in the US. There were 7 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes last year. How do we begin to deal with climate change, when so many people can't even deal with the facts?
But from what I am reading of comments on other news sources, they are in good company from a not to small portion of the population who is pathologically uninformed or just in denial. There are people who seem to think Katrina was the last hurricane to hit the US, and since that was 12 years ago proves that climate change is not the cause, these things just happen from time to time. And many don't realize that storm systems change as they develop and progress. Matthew, for example started as a tropical storm, then progressed into a hurricane. Over 600 people died, including nearly 50 in the US. There were 7 hurricanes, and 4 major hurricanes last year. How do we begin to deal with climate change, when so many people can't even deal with the facts?
2
Thanks to Leonhardt for taking this opportunity to point out what has been obvious to the science-minded community for 50+ years. It is a difficult task to remind us all of the responsibility we share in this disaster, especially while tens of thousands are still seeking basic shelter and survival. We must face our mistakes, the time to start the work of mitigating climate change was yesterday, but we must stop living in denial and start now. Demand far-reaching actions from federal to local leaders, or elect responsible leaders based in reality.
2
Yes, there has to be a link between extreme, severe weather events such as Harvey and the fact of climate change. Ironically many deniers view the fact of climate change as a myth while, in other areas, embracing some myths as facts.
2
Arizona State University's Center for Negative Carbon Emissions is making extraordinary progress in developing a prototype that extracts large amounts of carbon dioxide from the air, from which it can be sequestered or recycled. I believe this sort of proactive approach is paramount right now. Industry and government should become more aggressive in funding the research and development of projects like this, that may, in fact, save our home, Earth.
Imagine if American workers were able to start manufacturing the carbon capture "machines" that would be needed worldwide....I can't see a downside.
https://cnce.engineering.asu.edu/
Imagine if American workers were able to start manufacturing the carbon capture "machines" that would be needed worldwide....I can't see a downside.
https://cnce.engineering.asu.edu/
6
What powers these machines?
The air flows across the honeycomb-like part that captures the carbon, and then the unit is submerged in water to separate the carbon out. According to one of the technical papers on their site, the energy for the separation comes from the evaporation of water, which is cool.
I read your comments with pleasure enjoying the wisdom within them. What I believe is necessary is that we, and the New York Times as well, begin to think about weather and climate beyond what affects the USA. Since 1994 I live in Southern Mexico, near the city of Oaxaca. There are no rivers or lakes to take water from for the needs of over half a million people that live in this area and their local agriculture. All water needs come from wells that depend on the water table. When there is not enough rain in this area, there's no water to work with. In the last years the water table has been reduced by use and lack of rain. The rain used to be filled at the time hurricanes hit the coast north of this region, in the Gulf of Mexico and south of us on the Pacific Coast. Hurricanes have lately gone further north, on one side to the States, on the other to Baja California. In the dry season of this year for the first time in 22 years we had no water in my well.
8
Katrina. Sandy. Harvey.
Here's the thing about climate change - it does not care if you believe it or not.
Here's the thing about climate change - it does not care if you believe it or not.
20
One of the most beautifully written editorials I have read.
Thank you for this stirring prose.
Thank you for this stirring prose.
1
Zora Neale Hurston describes a hurricane and flooding in its ferocity equivalent to Genesis in which nature reveals how all of creation tries to survive: Janie, Teacake, a cow, and a rabid dog. In the wake of Harvey, gators, snakes, fire ants and cattle as well as humans all looked for sure footing, all equalized in their need for survival.
Creatures can't take responsibility for the wanton destruction of nature, but humans can and ought to try to stem the flow of misery that we have unleashed in our mindless desire to conquer nature. It never has and never will ultimately dominate.
The kindness and generosity of people helping people is testament to their goodness, but we need to remove from the equation a leader so removed from the reality of global warming that he moved us out of the Paris Accords. Now, in the wreak of havoc that he and his party have created be humble in the face of nature?
Creatures can't take responsibility for the wanton destruction of nature, but humans can and ought to try to stem the flow of misery that we have unleashed in our mindless desire to conquer nature. It never has and never will ultimately dominate.
The kindness and generosity of people helping people is testament to their goodness, but we need to remove from the equation a leader so removed from the reality of global warming that he moved us out of the Paris Accords. Now, in the wreak of havoc that he and his party have created be humble in the face of nature?
7
OK, let's face reality. Johnny flunked science because he got confused by his Sunday School lessons about the 6,000 year old Earth. He might have passed statistics, but we apparently don't have time to teach that because we have to struggle with fractions for years because we're tbe last country on Earth still using the English system.
So let's try something different. The President after Trump (he can only talk about himself) tells stories about an angry god of your choice who brings floods, plagues of insects, fires and great winds. He spreads oil on the waters and poisons the rivers and lakes.
"But what does our god want from us?" we cry.
Faced with silence from their god, the people ponder this question in their hearts.
So let's try something different. The President after Trump (he can only talk about himself) tells stories about an angry god of your choice who brings floods, plagues of insects, fires and great winds. He spreads oil on the waters and poisons the rivers and lakes.
"But what does our god want from us?" we cry.
Faced with silence from their god, the people ponder this question in their hearts.
3
Bad timing. The GOP does not believe in climate change and probably would deny that we had anything to do with the situation-- "act of nature", right?
3
Climate change may indeed be a factor in the heavy rains of Harvey. One of the major reasons that so many people are affected is the "lack of zoning laws". Here in Florida, we have had almost the same amount of rainfall in some areas without the devastating flooding. Some areas flood routinely due to poor engineering of roads, sewers, and apartment complexes, but luckily not to the extent that Houston has had.
My heart goes out to all those affected by this terrible storm.
My heart goes out to all those affected by this terrible storm.
Ten years ago I spoke to a friend about Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth. He was (and is) a right wing Evangelical Christian who refused to go watch the film, seeing it as liberal propaganda. He was firmly latched onto the handful of scientists that were skeptical about man's impact on nature.
What remains chilling to this day about people like my friend is that in the end if human behavior results in world wide cataclysmic weather, it falls under the purvey of the biblical "End Days". My friend smiled fervently as he explained this concept to me as if it were a teaching moment.
The majority of Trump's Cabinet now attend weekly prayer meetings presided over by an Evangelical Christian preacher. House Speaker Paul Ryan is also Evangelical. These people are anti science and anti "big government". They cheered the President pulling out of the Paris Agreement. So I don't expect much in the way of leadership when it comes to dealing with climate change; as we get hit by one event after another and use up precious resources picking up the pieces each time there will be little thought to preventative measures. Trump in his normal 12-year-old's tweeting style calls the storm epic, his cabinet is probably thinking more like "Biblical". The rest of us should probably be heading for the mountains...
What remains chilling to this day about people like my friend is that in the end if human behavior results in world wide cataclysmic weather, it falls under the purvey of the biblical "End Days". My friend smiled fervently as he explained this concept to me as if it were a teaching moment.
The majority of Trump's Cabinet now attend weekly prayer meetings presided over by an Evangelical Christian preacher. House Speaker Paul Ryan is also Evangelical. These people are anti science and anti "big government". They cheered the President pulling out of the Paris Agreement. So I don't expect much in the way of leadership when it comes to dealing with climate change; as we get hit by one event after another and use up precious resources picking up the pieces each time there will be little thought to preventative measures. Trump in his normal 12-year-old's tweeting style calls the storm epic, his cabinet is probably thinking more like "Biblical". The rest of us should probably be heading for the mountains...
14
It's hard to convince those who support climate change deniers when they prefer, to paraphrase Vaclav Havel, to "live in a lie." It's a lot easier to live that way: they don't have to take any personal or collective responsibility for what's happening.
I'm not very hopeful that's going to change, no matter what the facts.
I'm not very hopeful that's going to change, no matter what the facts.
9
When you can stop mother nature, get back to us.
Bravo! The polar bears' loss is drowning Houston. Sadly, there is some poetic justice there.
As oil reigned, Texas became a rogue state (Rick Perry? the oil-saturated Bushes) transitioning from a responsibly politically divided state to politically greed-centered.
The capacity of Texas to site solar panels and wind farms might now come into play.
And there would be space for another Henry B. Gonzales in the House and Ralph Yarborough (or an Ann Richardson) in the Senate.
As oil reigned, Texas became a rogue state (Rick Perry? the oil-saturated Bushes) transitioning from a responsibly politically divided state to politically greed-centered.
The capacity of Texas to site solar panels and wind farms might now come into play.
And there would be space for another Henry B. Gonzales in the House and Ralph Yarborough (or an Ann Richardson) in the Senate.
4
@witm1991. Actually Texas already produces more than twice as much wind power as any other state (Iowa is second) as well as vast amounts of natural gas which is weaning the nation of. Asylum more CO2 intensive coal and oil based power production.
You might want to mitigate your own ignorance before displaying your bigotry.
You might want to mitigate your own ignorance before displaying your bigotry.
This page was written years when Ronald Reagan ripped Jimmy Carter's solar panels off the White House. Since then the GOP has chosen the path of ridiculing clean energy and denying the science of global warming. Why? To provide cover for doing nothing about it. Today, Trump and Pruitt are busy reversing all prudent regulations Obama proposed that would have prevented much of Harvey's harm, such as requiring roads and bridges to be built to withstand major flooding. Smart building that Obama proposed saves four times the cost of construction down the road because those roads wouldn't have to be rebuilt after storms like Harvey. Ruinous storms like Harvey have been predicted for decades, while the GOP turned, and still turns, its blind eye toward the future. Because we elected Trump and other willfully blind GOP politicians, we will have none of those prudent, responsible, and life-saving rules, especially to limit carbon pollution which is raising sea levels, warming the Gulf and causing torrential rain. When it comes to future planning GOP has put its collective heads in the sand. They have chosen to burden our children and grandchildren with perpetual rebuilding, suffering, and drowning.
15
While not being advocates of paving over paradise, the statistic of adding 24% more pavement in the 15 years between 1996-2011 needs more context to be properly understood - too often, it is left out of these type stories that various parts of Houston have been sinking since at least 1975, in somewhat the same fashion seen in New Orleans.
And just as New Orleans has more drainage issues at high tide than low tide, so do Houston's bayous, which supply the entirety of the city's drainage.
Since it is not possible to re-elevate that which has sunk down over decades, pumps are the usual solution, but that type infrastructure would require raising property taxes, which decades of GOP'ers in Houston and Austin have been busily whittling, whacking, and chain-sawing away at.
However, there is nothing which would have totally prevented the ill effects of 50" of relentless rain, in the space of 4-5 days, on any city in America.
And just as New Orleans has more drainage issues at high tide than low tide, so do Houston's bayous, which supply the entirety of the city's drainage.
Since it is not possible to re-elevate that which has sunk down over decades, pumps are the usual solution, but that type infrastructure would require raising property taxes, which decades of GOP'ers in Houston and Austin have been busily whittling, whacking, and chain-sawing away at.
However, there is nothing which would have totally prevented the ill effects of 50" of relentless rain, in the space of 4-5 days, on any city in America.
6
Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, we have burned about 2,000 billion tons of carbon, driving the planetary temperature up by 1.2 degrees Celsius. That is dangerously close to the 1.5-degree limit that scientists say we should not exceed. Look at the rapid increase in global extreme weather events we are experiencing. If we hope to keep the planetary temperature rise under the 1.5-degree limit, we can burn only 162 billion more tons of carbon. The critical issue being ignored is that as of 2011 we had 2,795 billion tons of carbon in inventory ready to burn — that’s 17 times more fossil fuel than we can burn if we expect to survive. If we burn that much, it may drive the planetary temperature at least 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) higher, rendering the planet uninhabitable for many creatures, including us. Why isn't anyone focused on this carbon limitation?
5
I have no doubt that Leonhardt is smart enough to realize that actions on climate remediation must come from elected politicians. But, politicians serve a narrow constituency - the rich and very rich. If they served the 99%, efforts to reverse climate change would be a done deal today.
The same can be said about every other life sustaining issue, including healthcare (physical and mental), gun control, workplace safety, livable wages, Social Security, infrastructure, banking regulations and myriad number of life impacting issues.
What climate change and all the other aforementioned issues have in common is that they affect most adversely the middle class and most disadvantaged. You won't see rich people wading through flooded streets, or waiting on rooftops to be rescued. They live on high ground well protected from the trials and tribulations of the hoi-polloi. And, the rich, like members of Congress, can afford the best healthcare available.
Using but a pittance of what they make and save, they rich fund political campaigns in exchange for massive tax breaks and relief from 'onerous' Federal regulations and laws.
The climate science is irrefutable and is ignored by politicians who are paid handsomely to ignore it. Instead, politicians and their media collaborators focus on racial, religious and social issues that are designed to divide and conquer, and ultimately divert attention from their corruption.
The same can be said about every other life sustaining issue, including healthcare (physical and mental), gun control, workplace safety, livable wages, Social Security, infrastructure, banking regulations and myriad number of life impacting issues.
What climate change and all the other aforementioned issues have in common is that they affect most adversely the middle class and most disadvantaged. You won't see rich people wading through flooded streets, or waiting on rooftops to be rescued. They live on high ground well protected from the trials and tribulations of the hoi-polloi. And, the rich, like members of Congress, can afford the best healthcare available.
Using but a pittance of what they make and save, they rich fund political campaigns in exchange for massive tax breaks and relief from 'onerous' Federal regulations and laws.
The climate science is irrefutable and is ignored by politicians who are paid handsomely to ignore it. Instead, politicians and their media collaborators focus on racial, religious and social issues that are designed to divide and conquer, and ultimately divert attention from their corruption.
27
This is nothing but cheap demagoguery. In the richest zip codes in California there are are more believers in climate change than in the poorest ones in Texas. Other capitalist countries, including Germany, the U.K., Australia and many more, are implementing climate-change measures. Indeed, the rest of the civilized world has signed the Paris Accord, despite having its share of rich people. The reason why so many Americans deny climate change is religious fervor and populism-fueled ignorance: in other words, those same "social issues" you decry.
Peter Brannen's book: The Ends of the World: Volcanic Apocalypses, Lethal Oceans, and Our Quest to Understand Earth's Past Mass Extinctions, documents the mass extinctions of the earth and how over hundreds of millions of years we cycle between carbon and oxygen driving life on earth.
Mankind was the "disaster opportunist" of the last extinction. As we evolved we destroyed everything in our path. But while dinosaurs ruled for 100 million years, our reign may be much shorter thanks to our rapid evolution.
We are not in an extinction-level event or even on track for one. We are speeding up the process of rapid human depopulation...and loss of biodiversity. We are compromising the environment and non-human life is beginning to disappear or diminish. Storms like this are the edge of human life diminishing.
The only math you need to know is "more carbon = less oxygen"... so as we continue to add carbon faster than the earth can process it, we work hard to create a world that will no longer support oxygen-based life. Namely, us. Left unchecked, by 2050-2070, this planet will be much hotter. Heat alone will kill a significant percentage of the global population... regardless of oxygen.
If mankind broke it? Mankind can fix it. If we didn't? We still need to try and fix this. Because we will not survive the next extinction-level event... the dominant species for all extinctions is the one that disappears. The best we can do is try not to kill ourselves until then.
Mankind was the "disaster opportunist" of the last extinction. As we evolved we destroyed everything in our path. But while dinosaurs ruled for 100 million years, our reign may be much shorter thanks to our rapid evolution.
We are not in an extinction-level event or even on track for one. We are speeding up the process of rapid human depopulation...and loss of biodiversity. We are compromising the environment and non-human life is beginning to disappear or diminish. Storms like this are the edge of human life diminishing.
The only math you need to know is "more carbon = less oxygen"... so as we continue to add carbon faster than the earth can process it, we work hard to create a world that will no longer support oxygen-based life. Namely, us. Left unchecked, by 2050-2070, this planet will be much hotter. Heat alone will kill a significant percentage of the global population... regardless of oxygen.
If mankind broke it? Mankind can fix it. If we didn't? We still need to try and fix this. Because we will not survive the next extinction-level event... the dominant species for all extinctions is the one that disappears. The best we can do is try not to kill ourselves until then.
5
Climate is changing. An observable fact. Whether it is because or to what degree it is because of man's activities is a pointless argument. The steps we need to take to mitigate the impacts of climate change are the same, regardless of cause. Included in a mitigation strategy is a long list of steps and measures that can be (reasonably) coupled with potential climate change. And most of these measures will in fact increase our well-being and enhance our economy. It is this last part that climate-deniers have wrong.
9
I'm not sure what you just said, Steve. If you don't believe Climate Change is man caused, what would you propose to do "to mitigate the impacts of Climate Change"? Why not attack the root cause, which is fossil fuel consumption?
5
@Bobcb - Reduction of fossil fuel emissions is one of the mitigation steps a rational person would follow, whether those emissions can be conclusively (or exclusively) or quantitatively linked to global warning. We have observable correlations, -and- we have well-understood mechanisms coupling them (causation). Personally, I think that fossil fuel use is not the -only- cause of warming, but it is plausible, and it is something we can act on.
Whether we can agree on the quantitation or not, the steps to "act on" this remain the same (solar/renewable, urban development, etc.). And all of these steps - taken for whatever reason - are economically desirable and technologically feasible.
Whether we can agree on the quantitation or not, the steps to "act on" this remain the same (solar/renewable, urban development, etc.). And all of these steps - taken for whatever reason - are economically desirable and technologically feasible.
1
How's that model of low taxes and minimal public services, along with government reluctance to ever tell business what to do or not do, doing at a time when extensive public services would really come in handy?
14
For the wealthy its working out quite well Mike. The wealthy will be cool notwithstanding the weather, so what do they care?
The death tool from Hurricane Harvey, a category four storm, so far strand at nine or 10. The death toll for Hurricane Sandy. a category one storm that hit high-tax states New York and New Jersey was 233.
It's my understanding that there are other human factors present in Houston's tragedy. Development has covered the ground with concrete so that rain water does not soak in. The potential effects of flooding are not considered in planning the location of buildings. Whatever the climate, chance will favor those who prepare.
12
I am a Tropical Storm Irene survivor - Danby, Vermont (you may watch the building that I lived in fall into a branch of the Otter Creek on YouTube). Millbrook House 1830 and once owned by Pearl S. Buck. And no one, except members of the Danby Historical Society knew I lived in the second floor apartment of this building. Not surprisingly I am still recovering from the SHOCK. I am still literally getting back on my feet and am grateful that I am 62 years old and that Franklin Delano Roosevelt created programs for people who need a hand up. The shock may never recede.
21
The earth’s climate alternates between long glacial ages and short interglacial periods due to the current positioning of the continental plates, the earth’s orbital cycles, and the tilt of the earth’s axis. We are currently about two million years into a glacial age—also known as an ice age—that will probably last for another eight million years. We are experiencing a brief interglacial interval, a warming trend that began about 20,000 years ago. In geological time, this interglacial period will last a few more minutes. Reducing manmade carbon emissions might slow but won’t stop global warming. If Americans really believed in global warming, they would recommend that we start evacuating coastal cities now. If Americans really believed in disaster preparedness, they would recommend the evacuation of cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle located on the earthquake prone Pacific Rim. But this won’t happen. Instead, we will pretend everything will be okay if we install solar panels.
4
Let's, for the sake of argument, agree that we are experiencing an interval of natural warming. However, the salient point to consider is that human-induced warming on top of natural factors is bringing us to a tipping point, and it is the only element that we can hope to control. Your suggestion, that because we are not presently abandoning major population centers our concerns about global warming are hypocritical, is a rhetorical fallacy.
2
Are you certain we are that stupid? Given the understanding of science abroad in the country and the last national voting, you may be correct.
Even so, all steps you suggest should be taken PLUS the fastest moves to reduce energy consumption and total weaning from fossil fuels while installing solar panels and wind farms in order to give us as much time to enjoy our planet as possible.
Jobs! National engagement à là WWII! Are we still capable of that kind of engagement? Or are our bodies and brains too eroded by endless "products" made with glucose syrup?
Even so, all steps you suggest should be taken PLUS the fastest moves to reduce energy consumption and total weaning from fossil fuels while installing solar panels and wind farms in order to give us as much time to enjoy our planet as possible.
Jobs! National engagement à là WWII! Are we still capable of that kind of engagement? Or are our bodies and brains too eroded by endless "products" made with glucose syrup?
1
We should focus more on coping with the effects of climate change rather than merely slowing down global warming. Some effects of global warming are beneficial. At present, immense regions of the planet too cold for habitation or agriculture. The end of global warming poses far greater challenges.
There's a certain irony in Houston being at the center of this storm given the city is also at the heart of the oil and gas industry which has done so much to try to discredit climate change science.
The link between higher sea temperatures and extreme weather is indisputable as are the man-made alterations to America's shores that mean that much of the damage from these storms is self-induced.
What will it take to change people's minds, starting with the denier in chief?
The link between higher sea temperatures and extreme weather is indisputable as are the man-made alterations to America's shores that mean that much of the damage from these storms is self-induced.
What will it take to change people's minds, starting with the denier in chief?
27
I wish no one harm but I would hope that Houston's oil barons, especially Exxon Mobil executives, recant their corporate efforts to deny climate science as flood waters damage their homes. An even better way for them to atone for their sins would be to press for Pruitt's dismissal as EPA chief.
2
When you have ocean water temps at 87 degrees you can expect massive rainfalls.
While global warming may not change the total number of hurricanes, it does account for the numerous flash floods and massive tropical downpours we have been experiencing in the southern coastal states.
While global warming may not change the total number of hurricanes, it does account for the numerous flash floods and massive tropical downpours we have been experiencing in the southern coastal states.
17
Another global warming issue is that heat trapping gasses lead to relatively more warming in polar regions. Since temperature differences lead to wind movement, reducing those temperature differences lead to more stagnant weather patterns, increasing the odds of storms like this one hanging over Houston for days.
15
When it comes to storms, water vapor is much, much more than just moisture or rainfall. It's an amazing energy transfer medium, and how storms get the energy they need to exist. We're (mostly) all aware that it takes energy to warm or cool water. More accurately, water absorbs energy when it is warmed and gives it back when it's cooled. What fewer people are aware of is just how much energy is involved in evaporation, condensation, freezing and melting. Water evaporating or condensing requires the equivalent of 533 degrees celsius worth of heating or cooling. And freezing or melting requires 80. Which means when water evaporates from the surface and recondenses in the upper atmosphere, it is pumping huge amounts of energy up there. Even a small change in surface temperature can therefore result in massive amounts of new energy entering the atmosphere to drive storm systems.
17
How does that translate into Fahrenheit, which we Americans understand better?
2
These numbers, while they may be correct, are seriously obscure even to this reasonably scientifically literate layperson (and I did well at MIT). Please try to put your arguments in more accessible language. Meanwhile, for anyone interested, here's a rough guide to Celsius/Centigrade/C and Fahrenheit/F. (Absolute Temperature adds about 273C from absolute 0 to freezing.)
Water freezes at 0 C (absent salt in the water) and boils at 100 C (elevation and other things may cause slight variations). 1 degree C is 1.8 degrees F.
One useful thing to remember is that 28C is 82F. 40C is 104F.
That said, I think Flint's point that there is a lot of energy stored or released by thawing and freezing and boiling is important, regardless of whether one can comprehend the numbers.
Water freezes at 0 C (absent salt in the water) and boils at 100 C (elevation and other things may cause slight variations). 1 degree C is 1.8 degrees F.
One useful thing to remember is that 28C is 82F. 40C is 104F.
That said, I think Flint's point that there is a lot of energy stored or released by thawing and freezing and boiling is important, regardless of whether one can comprehend the numbers.
1
In scientific terms, the energy transferred when a substance changes states between liquid and gas is the "heat of evaporation" (also called the "enthalpy of vaporization"). The energy of the state change between solid and liquid is called the "heat of fusion." Both of these are also called "latent heat" because it doesn't involve a change of temperature, only a state change of the matter (from solid, liquid, or gas) at a constant temperature. Of all the common substances on Earth, water has the highest latent heat characteristics. It dwarfs even silicon, iron, gold and other metals. No artificial refrigerant comes even close.
As for temperature conversions, Google will do many conversions for you. Just type "Convert NN units1 to units2" in the search bar, plugging in the number and the name of the units you want to convert from/to. The basic manual conversion for degrees C to F is divide by 5 and multiply by 9. Bear in mind that if you're talking about measuring temperatures, the two scales start at different numbers. The freezing point of water is 0 in C and 32 in F, so you may have to add or subtract that. But, if you're just talking relative changes, you don't.
As for temperature conversions, Google will do many conversions for you. Just type "Convert NN units1 to units2" in the search bar, plugging in the number and the name of the units you want to convert from/to. The basic manual conversion for degrees C to F is divide by 5 and multiply by 9. Bear in mind that if you're talking about measuring temperatures, the two scales start at different numbers. The freezing point of water is 0 in C and 32 in F, so you may have to add or subtract that. But, if you're just talking relative changes, you don't.
1
The key thought behind climate change, or global warming, or whatever you want to call it, is not that the earth is warming -- although it is -- but that the result is more severe weather in every form. This means drier and longer droughts, heavier rain, snowier winters, more air turbulence, higher tides, and the list goes on. None of it have we seen before, and virtually none of it can we prepare for. The only solution is to end the problem, because we are helpless before its symptoms.
9
So the experts have spoken and most of the industrial world has taken corrective actions, so why not America? There are oil producers in other countries and those countries have chosen to take action. There are educated and uneducated citizens in other countries and those countries have taken action. There are governments of various types such as parliaments and others in place in other countries and those countries have taken action. There are also news organization of various sorts in other countries yet those countries have taken action. Finally, there are states within our own country that see the same climate conditions around our country and all over the world and they too have taken action. What makes the United States government reluctant to take action? Why are the experts not believed and weather's clearly worsening changes not leading our national government to take corrective actions? And why are the citizens of America not beating down the doors of congress to demand that Washington do all in its power to take action?
23
Will Houston rebuild? What measures will it take if it does?
2
Of course it will rebuild. So long as there are jobs to be had, my guess is that people will come back. Economically it is a much healthier city than NOLA was at the time. But I'm baised being a Texan.
According to mainstream media, humans are simultaneously responsible for hotter and colder weather, drought and increased rain, and, according to this article, the "ferocity" of Hurricane Harvey.
If this article were written a couple of years ago all of these weather extremes--and hurricanes like Harvey--would have been blamed on "global warming." However, when it was shown that "global warming" figures had been "cooked," suddenly "global warming" was replaced by "climate change."
It is reasonable to believe that human activity, particularly industrialization, can affect earth's atmosphere and climate. However, the nature and extent of this impact are still imperfectly understood, not just by editorial writers but by competent scientists.
It is well documented that the climate changes that took place on earth over tens of thousands of years are much more extreme than anything we are seeing today. For example, there was a series of ice ages followed by periods of extreme rain and heat, none of which could have been caused by humans and industrialization because there were not many humans around and industrialization didn't exist. Is it possible that there are non-human factors that affect climate change? Do ya think?
This opinion piece boldly states that climate change may lead to "disease, famine and flooding of biblical proportions...." I hope all readers understand that a key characteristic of propaganda is that it often uses fear rather than facts to persuade.
If this article were written a couple of years ago all of these weather extremes--and hurricanes like Harvey--would have been blamed on "global warming." However, when it was shown that "global warming" figures had been "cooked," suddenly "global warming" was replaced by "climate change."
It is reasonable to believe that human activity, particularly industrialization, can affect earth's atmosphere and climate. However, the nature and extent of this impact are still imperfectly understood, not just by editorial writers but by competent scientists.
It is well documented that the climate changes that took place on earth over tens of thousands of years are much more extreme than anything we are seeing today. For example, there was a series of ice ages followed by periods of extreme rain and heat, none of which could have been caused by humans and industrialization because there were not many humans around and industrialization didn't exist. Is it possible that there are non-human factors that affect climate change? Do ya think?
This opinion piece boldly states that climate change may lead to "disease, famine and flooding of biblical proportions...." I hope all readers understand that a key characteristic of propaganda is that it often uses fear rather than facts to persuade.
2
"key characteristic of propaganda is that it often uses fear rather than facts to persuade".
Your point is well taken, but how about when it applies to immigration, trade, races and bigotry, as it has been apparent in the last seven months (as a minimum)?
Your point is well taken, but how about when it applies to immigration, trade, races and bigotry, as it has been apparent in the last seven months (as a minimum)?
8
This is baloney all the way through. First, Republicans changed the terminology. Secondly, it has not been shown that data was "cooked". Thermometers are calibrated, and the temperature record is complex, but when you go outside the temperature is still a temperature that you can feel.
It's impossible to go into the jumble of fake hype here, but here's another way to use a few more words to put the two terms in context. We have to use words, which are approximations. Temperature records include, from the oldest to the newest, with varying degrees of complexity. Uncertainty is not your friend, but getting outside and tracking world weather news and noticing your own environment over more than a decade will give you a clue.
We are adding heat-trapping greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, which is increasingly the energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which is disrupting our planetary circulation (climate change).
One problem with unskeptical "skeptics" (real scientists are true skeptics) is that they take any argument that supports their bias even though these arguments are neither consistent nor honest.
It's impossible to go into the jumble of fake hype here, but here's another way to use a few more words to put the two terms in context. We have to use words, which are approximations. Temperature records include, from the oldest to the newest, with varying degrees of complexity. Uncertainty is not your friend, but getting outside and tracking world weather news and noticing your own environment over more than a decade will give you a clue.
We are adding heat-trapping greenhouse gases to our atmosphere, which is increasingly the energy (heat) in the system (global warming) which is disrupting our planetary circulation (climate change).
One problem with unskeptical "skeptics" (real scientists are true skeptics) is that they take any argument that supports their bias even though these arguments are neither consistent nor honest.
17
Way to go, Susan! I'm with you about using GOOD science to support our arguments.
1
Regardless of how one feels about climate change it is clear that human activity is affecting how regions absorb shocks from extreme weather events. Poor city planning, pollution, over building, paving over earth, toxic waste and spills. The bottom line is there are better ways to do things and the USA should use those better practices whenever possible even if it costs corporations some profits. Politicians should be awarded for supporting progress not just profits.
17
Every time I read news articles, books, or youtube videos related to global warming and climate change, I am constantly reminded of the fact that we, humankind, are to blame for these disastrous environmental issues. But as a human myself, it is unbelievably hard to admit that we are responsible for the disastrous effects of Harvey, the melting of icebergs, sinking islands, droughts, and deaths.
We are responsible for the deaths of the victims of Harvey. We are responsible for making polar bears hard to survive at home. We are responsible for taking away peoples' homes and happiness, forcing them to immigrate by increasing seawater level.
We are criminals, whether we like it or not. We are all commiting unforgivable crimes every time we eat cow meat, or leave the light on in an unused room, or when we use plastic/paper dishes instead of ceramic wares.
We have to make up for all the damage that we have done to Earth, and our fellow companions living on it. Harvey and its mass destruction shows that once again.
So whenever you are using too much electricity, or when you're littering , or when you're throwing away re-usable items carelessly into the bin, think about the innocent lives lost because of your actions. Think about peoples' livelihoods, being destroyed. Think about the people in Houston, having to wade through knee-deep water just to get back home, only to find it completely ransacked or submerged.
Let's leave Earth a better place than when we found it.
We are responsible for the deaths of the victims of Harvey. We are responsible for making polar bears hard to survive at home. We are responsible for taking away peoples' homes and happiness, forcing them to immigrate by increasing seawater level.
We are criminals, whether we like it or not. We are all commiting unforgivable crimes every time we eat cow meat, or leave the light on in an unused room, or when we use plastic/paper dishes instead of ceramic wares.
We have to make up for all the damage that we have done to Earth, and our fellow companions living on it. Harvey and its mass destruction shows that once again.
So whenever you are using too much electricity, or when you're littering , or when you're throwing away re-usable items carelessly into the bin, think about the innocent lives lost because of your actions. Think about peoples' livelihoods, being destroyed. Think about the people in Houston, having to wade through knee-deep water just to get back home, only to find it completely ransacked or submerged.
Let's leave Earth a better place than when we found it.
20
In the very very long run, our behavior will likely cause human extinction which will ultimately save the planet at least for other life forms.
12
We are earth's apex predator, and earth has a way of cutting predators down to size. But I think humans will survive, just not in the expanding billions we accept as normal. When we outgrow our host that host can and will react, and our planet is finite. And Mars, come on! Not hospitable at all, it's an expensive journey difficult journey to a hostile place that cannot now sustain life as we understand it.
8
Thank you, Susan, for bringing up biological systems too few seem to understand. There's a reason species at the top of the food chain are fewer and further between. Their food/energy needs require massive amounts of resources. It's like a pyramid. It takes a lot of grass to feed an ungulate, it takes a lot of ungulates to feed a wolf. If the top predator over-populates, nature knocks their numbers back ruthlessly with disease and starvation. Life on earth has evolved and contined through this self-correcting balance. Humans think we have out-witted the system. We have not. Either we limit our numbers, or nature will do it for us.
1
This storm and several others have taught us that they way we planned our cities and towns no longer meets the vagaries of nature. Whatever caused these changes can be debated forever but saving lives and property is essential for our survival. So if the entire US Navy is planning for higher sea levels and beach erosion why would the rest of us ignore it? Houston, as we can see, has amazing citizens with poor civil engineering in place - for example, a world class medical center that can survive Cat 4 Storm but no access roads. So the next wave of infrastructure investments but include plans on how we mitigate the climatic changes including investments in research so we understand our changing Earth even more. For now, we help the Texans!
9
Thank you for your well reasoned and thoughtful ringing of the alarm bells. I have been hoping that voices like yours would rise to connect the obvious dots between Harvey and man-made climate change. Fear is typically such a powerful propellant to action. And yet, denial rages on. It is the most urgent conundrum of our times to crack the code of the deniers blocking the ever-narrowing pathway out of the encroaching global disaster. No amount of sand over head will protect us from what is brewing.
18
notoriously lax zoning regulations in Houston, paving over large sections of the city, and the national flood insurance program are much more likely significant contributors to Houston's problem then climate change. see the piece in Politico.
7
Correction-- not lax zoning regulations-- NO zoning regulations. It is the largest city in the US without zoning. Any type of construction regulation (apart from building codes) is due to deed restrictions. Frequently large scale development is tied to the deed restrictions put in place by the developer. Much of Harris Co. is NOT incorporated. Houston proper is only a small portion of the county. My guess is that a large part of the recovery problem will be due to a lack of municipalities in the land area surrounding Houston proper.
1
I'm baffled by those who think a disaster like this is an either/or situation. Of course it is poor urban planning AND climate change. One does not rule out the other. They are not mutually exclusive.
2
Neil deGrasse Tyson made a far more elegant argument last night on The Daily Show and in the final chapter of his new book.
The existing tools of science made an accurate prediction of the solar eclipse many decades before it occurred, and many people, including the "climate change is a Chinese hoax" president enjoyed seeing the predicted outcome. So why are the available scientific tools that are accepted in astrophysics so readily questioned in climate science? Politics and the triumph of money pouring in from plutocrats reluctant to lose money from industries exacerbating climate chang, perhaps?
The existing tools of science made an accurate prediction of the solar eclipse many decades before it occurred, and many people, including the "climate change is a Chinese hoax" president enjoyed seeing the predicted outcome. So why are the available scientific tools that are accepted in astrophysics so readily questioned in climate science? Politics and the triumph of money pouring in from plutocrats reluctant to lose money from industries exacerbating climate chang, perhaps?
39
Well, maybe because the models of orbital geometries used for eclipse predictions are extremely simple with few well-constrained variables. Climate models are incredibly more complex with many under-constrained variables (and even likely factors and mechanisms we do not yet recognize). With all due respect to Dr. Tyson, a more equivalent astrophysical analogy might be something like the genesis of black holes.
2
Bob: the predictions of greater extremes in temperatures, more severe storms and weather events, oceanic acidification, and loss of massive ice shelves all are seeming to be vindicated.
2
Heat as in warming is only one manifestation of ENERGY. Kinetic energy is another - wind, waves, and storms. Also, melting ice does not just go directly to the sea. First it goes into air circulation and eventually rains down. After the last ice melts there should be less mega rain, but more energy manifesting as heat, as in warming. So you are right.
5
Whether you call it climate change or environmental degradation, the effects of human infestation of the planet are appearing in a broad range of visible and invisible manifestations.
In my lifetime, which began in the mid-1940's, I have seen a dramatic decline in the beautiful and fragile plants and animals that populated our miraculous planet. I have witnessed the proliferation of noxious and invasive species in their place.
In only 20 years I have seen the oceans that teemed with pelagic fish and birds become silent and empty, Jellyfish and algae replacing them. Twittering, once the province of songbirds, has been replaced by the cacophony of Starlings, Grackles, crows and sparrows.
Where once there were butterflies and honeybees, there are tree eating beetles, ticks, and mosquitoes. Floods, droughts, fire and war ravage lands once arable and productive. Refugee populations seek temporary relief in already overcrowded safe havens.
The Elms have died, the native Chestnuts too, and now the Ash trees and Hemlocks. Potable water sources are becoming corporate assets. The very cells within our bodies are, more and more, mutating into cancers with increasing frequency.
Not to be alarmist, but the human race seems to have become a planetary parasite, killing its host and, in the end, itself.
In my lifetime, which began in the mid-1940's, I have seen a dramatic decline in the beautiful and fragile plants and animals that populated our miraculous planet. I have witnessed the proliferation of noxious and invasive species in their place.
In only 20 years I have seen the oceans that teemed with pelagic fish and birds become silent and empty, Jellyfish and algae replacing them. Twittering, once the province of songbirds, has been replaced by the cacophony of Starlings, Grackles, crows and sparrows.
Where once there were butterflies and honeybees, there are tree eating beetles, ticks, and mosquitoes. Floods, droughts, fire and war ravage lands once arable and productive. Refugee populations seek temporary relief in already overcrowded safe havens.
The Elms have died, the native Chestnuts too, and now the Ash trees and Hemlocks. Potable water sources are becoming corporate assets. The very cells within our bodies are, more and more, mutating into cancers with increasing frequency.
Not to be alarmist, but the human race seems to have become a planetary parasite, killing its host and, in the end, itself.
92
So, the consequences of denial and little to no prevention lead inexorably to further devastation and crises. Harvey is a prime example of an unnatural disaster.
We will wake up one day and realize we have waited too long to take preventive action. However, the time to reverse the damage already done is NOW. It is possible to reduce the safe concentration of carbon dioxide from current levels of 400 ppm to the 350 ppm safe level. IF we can build that consensus in Congress!
We will wake up one day and realize we have waited too long to take preventive action. However, the time to reverse the damage already done is NOW. It is possible to reduce the safe concentration of carbon dioxide from current levels of 400 ppm to the 350 ppm safe level. IF we can build that consensus in Congress!
6
A very beautiful elegy to the vanishing world.
2
"Twittering, once the province of songbirds, has been replaced by the cacophony of Starlings, Grackles, crows and sparrows." You left out Trump
"Many states have discussed leaving the Union over the last century, but the talk has been louder in Texas, with some Republicans, including former Governor Rick Perry, floating the idea of secession."
Float that idea now, Rick, before the rest of the country has to pay for the bail out.
Float that idea now, Rick, before the rest of the country has to pay for the bail out.
76
This is a fine article. At some point in the future, I fear that compassion may be in short supply as more and more people find themselves in dire straits. Without a massive commitment from government to address climate change, we may be overwhelmed in some future crises.
21
Just as water finds its own level, the human population is finding its stable level - some places by disease, famine, and war; but more and more by free women, education, and rising standards. That and the advances of science and society should avail, unless a Blofeld of Spectre Island looses patience.
There is no climate change because the oil companies say so. And the politicians that depend on the donations from the oil companies say so. And the networks which receive ad revenue from the oil companies say so.
And, at one point, as I recall, smoking did not cause lung cancer because the cigarette companies said so.
And, at one point, as I recall, smoking did not cause lung cancer because the cigarette companies said so.
99
And there are those that say there's no neo nazis, nor homeless, nor going to sleep hungry children, nor liars-in-chief, nor WSt thieves, nor unjust wars, nor smog, neither global warming..... all fine and dandy, super denial, have a nice day, exporting democracy and freedom. Should I continue?
Smart humans main responsibility and even obligation is to see reality as it is.
I had a neighbour in Pasadena, LA that did try to convince me that she had no smog around because of her garden's tall trees! In the 70s!!!
Smart humans main responsibility and even obligation is to see reality as it is.
I had a neighbour in Pasadena, LA that did try to convince me that she had no smog around because of her garden's tall trees! In the 70s!!!
Here's another way to look at it. Even if we can't know if Harvey was caused by global warming, we can know that it is a preview of the sort of catastrophic storm that continued warming will almost certainly cause with much greater frequency. That alone is a reason to get much more serious about climate change.
19
Mr Leonhardt focuses primarily on climate change as the culprit but he also rightly notes the increase in impervious surfaces in Houston (and most places in the country). In fact, they are related. We build more roads, parking lots, expansive buildings farther from the center of the city, necessitating longer commutes, slower traffic, more difficult coverage of mass transit. And once built, this infrastructure makes it far more difficult to change our energy consumption. If much of Houston is destroyed and must be dismantled, perhaps the reconstruction needs to be rethought literally from the ground up, with smarter urban planning that places climate at the center.
20
You are correct. Houston is a disaster waiting to happen because poor planning and, in haste, ignoring possible dangers. However, it is a symptom of a far larger issue. Unfortunately, there will far more destruction, dislocation and death unless our clueless politicians wake up. Even now it may be too late.
Even just a few years ago, I thought that the issues we are seeing would land on my offspring and certainly on theirs, but the timeline is moving faster. There is talk of a tipping point and in its simplest form could be compared to electronic feedback - the screech that becomes unbearable when placing a mic closer and closer to its speakers.
Even just a few years ago, I thought that the issues we are seeing would land on my offspring and certainly on theirs, but the timeline is moving faster. There is talk of a tipping point and in its simplest form could be compared to electronic feedback - the screech that becomes unbearable when placing a mic closer and closer to its speakers.
If Houston's over heated, wet weather is a portend of the future, and Human geo-engineering of the planet continues unabated, a second Age if the dinosaurs will
emerge.
emerge.
2
This is probably the most important opinion piece of the year. Harvey is our wake-up call. Mother Nature (the Earth) is striking back...and you don't have to be a New Ager chanting Gaia to understand the ramifications.
Eventually we'll manage the problems caused by The Man in the White House. But this one, this slow to fast change in the way our climate works, will be the most difficult to manage.
And we must start thirty years ago.
Eventually we'll manage the problems caused by The Man in the White House. But this one, this slow to fast change in the way our climate works, will be the most difficult to manage.
And we must start thirty years ago.
58
So, it seems that Al Gore and many others were right to warn us, but our stupid politicians and their corporate masters chose to look the other way. Just wait until this level of disaster hits other major metropolitan areas along our coasts, like Miami or once again in New Orleans. Choosing to do nothing is a sure fire road to even worse disasters. Sadly, America refuses to learn anything from places like the Netherlands, that have used intelligent thinking to save their cities and country from the sea. But hey, we're exceptional....right?
31
The biggest lie of all is the one the fossil fuel fuel folks foist on a credulous populace, namely that the economy will take a huge hit if we take strong steps to curb greenhouse gases. Until we cut through this blatant fabrication once and for all, we'll never win over the dunderheads who keep expressing their "doubts".
25
So even if climate change isn't making hurricanes bigger and worse, what's the harm in cleaning up our environment? Sure, the Koch Brothers won't have 5 times the wealth of God, but hey, isn't 4 times God-like wealth enough for them?
And if we stop burning coal (all coal is dirty--clean coal is a myth), our air will smell better and fewer kids will get asthma and other breathing disorders. Not so bad, unless you are a coal company owner. The coal mine owners are hiding behind their poor workers on this issue--but they clearly couldn't care less about the workers. They are the ones, after all, who put hundreds of thousands of miners out of work by moving to automated coal removal and mountain-top destruction with slag flowing freely into rivers and streams that people used as water sources. And how many mine sites are still sitting there in complete disarray because the coal owners took all the profits, leaving the company with no resources to clean up their own mess?
Why are we so protective of people like these business owners who are already so wealthy and got that way by polluting our air and water? Isn't it about time that majority rule applied--as in: we, the majority, don't want you polluting our world and taking the profits for yourself. Oh, but ...freedom! Funny how little freedom the Houston folks wading through neck deep water have today.
And if we stop burning coal (all coal is dirty--clean coal is a myth), our air will smell better and fewer kids will get asthma and other breathing disorders. Not so bad, unless you are a coal company owner. The coal mine owners are hiding behind their poor workers on this issue--but they clearly couldn't care less about the workers. They are the ones, after all, who put hundreds of thousands of miners out of work by moving to automated coal removal and mountain-top destruction with slag flowing freely into rivers and streams that people used as water sources. And how many mine sites are still sitting there in complete disarray because the coal owners took all the profits, leaving the company with no resources to clean up their own mess?
Why are we so protective of people like these business owners who are already so wealthy and got that way by polluting our air and water? Isn't it about time that majority rule applied--as in: we, the majority, don't want you polluting our world and taking the profits for yourself. Oh, but ...freedom! Funny how little freedom the Houston folks wading through neck deep water have today.
73
Thank you Paula! Concise and to the point!!! You are speaking my language. I can't thank you enough.
It's time to stop arguing about WHO is contributing to climate change because that's clearly falling on too many deaf ears and start accepting the fact that there's a violent meteorological state that exists and if it's not seriously addressed by serious people who aren't putting their heads in the sand to avoid the reality will keep getting worse as weather events increase in size, number and ferocity.
The strongest point raised in your comparison to smoking and driving was to call it a public health crisis.
Just the phrase that's needed.
The strongest point raised in your comparison to smoking and driving was to call it a public health crisis.
Just the phrase that's needed.
16
Why not call out who caused climate change? If we aren't crystal clear about who's at fault voters won't do the one and only thing that will make a difference -- drop kick the GOP out of Congress.
2
I would like to hear from at least the scientists about the likelihood of the toxic wastes of the petro-chemical industries NOW leaking/flooding//rushing into the waters/soil of the area affected by Harvey.
13
Your "overwhelming suggestion," weasel words if there ever were any, is just your way of making your personal opinion seem fact. It isn't even close.
Are hurricanes any bigger today than they were ten thousand years ago? Are big hurricanes any more common? We don't know. The time span is important, because climate change doesn't happen over ten or one hundred year spans. It happens over tens of thousands of years.
50 years ago, my home town was leveled by Hurricane Donna. A century ago, Galveston, Texas was wiped out by a huge hurricane (They didn't have names yet). Interesting, but in terms of climate control, just anecdotes.
We have the real, long-term climate-change data. The UN's IPCC collects it all. It is very revealing. You ought to look at it, if it wouldn't upset your politically-based conclusions.
Of course, it would.
Are hurricanes any bigger today than they were ten thousand years ago? Are big hurricanes any more common? We don't know. The time span is important, because climate change doesn't happen over ten or one hundred year spans. It happens over tens of thousands of years.
50 years ago, my home town was leveled by Hurricane Donna. A century ago, Galveston, Texas was wiped out by a huge hurricane (They didn't have names yet). Interesting, but in terms of climate control, just anecdotes.
We have the real, long-term climate-change data. The UN's IPCC collects it all. It is very revealing. You ought to look at it, if it wouldn't upset your politically-based conclusions.
Of course, it would.
Diogenes, you are right about the time-scales. But there are data going back that far (and much farther) that enable us to make inferences about what the Earth was like before the dawn of civilization. Human activity seems to have had an impact. There is no political element at all in these conclusions.
And, you have made an error that we are all prone to make: we are all biased and naturally give greater weight to our own experience or selected facts we happen to know about. "I was in an accident, I walked away, and I was not wearing a seatbelt!" "My town was leveled by a storm 50 years ago, so storms are no worse today." "I know people who smoked all their lives and did not get lung cancer."
You overlook that thousands of people have spent years of their lives collecting and analyzing data, sharing it, and trying to understand it. Donna is in their data, along with every other storm and what is known about it, and much, much more.
So if Times readers are trying to understand, should we listen to them and trust their conclusions, or to you?
And, you have made an error that we are all prone to make: we are all biased and naturally give greater weight to our own experience or selected facts we happen to know about. "I was in an accident, I walked away, and I was not wearing a seatbelt!" "My town was leveled by a storm 50 years ago, so storms are no worse today." "I know people who smoked all their lives and did not get lung cancer."
You overlook that thousands of people have spent years of their lives collecting and analyzing data, sharing it, and trying to understand it. Donna is in their data, along with every other storm and what is known about it, and much, much more.
So if Times readers are trying to understand, should we listen to them and trust their conclusions, or to you?
6
Meh. Science doesn't care what you, politicians, scientists, Rush Limbaugh or the Koch Bros think. Science is measurable. If you had actually read the Leonhardt article, you'd have learned that the temperature of the Gulf of Mexico is at an all time high, as long as humans have been able to measure. The average surface temperature in Texas is at a proven all time high. The amount of pavement and non-permeable surface in Houston is at an all time high. You don't have to go back 50,000 years, because you don not have data from 50,000 years ago. Or, are you anti-science crusaders hiding something from the rest of us?
2
I believe it is happening now, take a look around. :-)
1
I lived in Houston for 17 years, and watching these scenes roll across the screen is horrifying and heartbreaking. But Houston has another problem, directly related to those absent zoning laws mentioned by Mr. Leonhardt. Here is a more more detailed discussion of those failures , and some indication of optimism as to what might be done: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/08/why-cities-flood/... ("Houston's Flood Is a Design Problem").
From that essay by Ian Bogost in The Atlantic:
"The hardest part of managing urban flooding is reconciling it with Americans’ insistence that they can and should be able to live, work, and play anywhere. Waterborne transit was a key driver of urban development, and it’s inevitable that cities have grown where flooding is prevalent. But there are some regions that just shouldn’t become cities. “Parts of Houston in the floodway, parts of New Orleans submerged during Katrina, parts of Florida—these places never should have been developed in the first place,” Debo concludes. Add sea-level rise and climate-change superstorms, and something has to give."
It will be difficult to rein in urban development, particularly with current majority attitudes in Congress and the White House. But science and engineering can help, if adequately funded and implemented on local levels.
So once this immediate, terrible disaster is past, Houston's city planners have a lot of work to do. And they should be given the means and motives to do it.
From that essay by Ian Bogost in The Atlantic:
"The hardest part of managing urban flooding is reconciling it with Americans’ insistence that they can and should be able to live, work, and play anywhere. Waterborne transit was a key driver of urban development, and it’s inevitable that cities have grown where flooding is prevalent. But there are some regions that just shouldn’t become cities. “Parts of Houston in the floodway, parts of New Orleans submerged during Katrina, parts of Florida—these places never should have been developed in the first place,” Debo concludes. Add sea-level rise and climate-change superstorms, and something has to give."
It will be difficult to rein in urban development, particularly with current majority attitudes in Congress and the White House. But science and engineering can help, if adequately funded and implemented on local levels.
So once this immediate, terrible disaster is past, Houston's city planners have a lot of work to do. And they should be given the means and motives to do it.
8
It's hard to imagine the US at this point in time doing the right thing about climate change. Or inequality. Or racism. Or ------- (insert serious problem of your choice.)
Individual freedoms and corporate and individual greed are the name of the game, from Silicon Valley to Houston's oil industry. While perhaps the world simply became too complex for humans to manage.
The idea of sacrifice for the greater good simply does not exist in America today, particularly among the wealthiest and those in politics, wth only rare exceptions.
Maybe evolution has a plan? Get rid of this species and wait for a smarter better one to emerge. Watching Houston feels like watching evolution in real time.
Individual freedoms and corporate and individual greed are the name of the game, from Silicon Valley to Houston's oil industry. While perhaps the world simply became too complex for humans to manage.
The idea of sacrifice for the greater good simply does not exist in America today, particularly among the wealthiest and those in politics, wth only rare exceptions.
Maybe evolution has a plan? Get rid of this species and wait for a smarter better one to emerge. Watching Houston feels like watching evolution in real time.
21
Hurricane Harvey is another reminder that you cannot fool Mother Nature.
This has been proven over and over.
Nature will win over man every time.
This has been proven over and over.
Nature will win over man every time.
2
The worst yet to come.
What they're not telling you .....yet.
1] National Flood Insurance will need massive bail out.
2] Area housing market will drop like a brick, nobody in sound mind or body with even average money will want to buy a house in the area and repeat this debacle. People who can will leave. You could not give me a house in Houston.
3] It's very likely to happen again in the near future, and it doesn't have to be nearly as bad to still be a mega-disaster.
4] Flood damage will be the worse and most costly ever seen in the US.
5] $225 Billion ( a little optimism here)
These are the GOP's peep's. TX is as red as a boil. The GOP pols will have to cough up the $$. No privatization plans here. Welcome to reality.
What they're not telling you .....yet.
1] National Flood Insurance will need massive bail out.
2] Area housing market will drop like a brick, nobody in sound mind or body with even average money will want to buy a house in the area and repeat this debacle. People who can will leave. You could not give me a house in Houston.
3] It's very likely to happen again in the near future, and it doesn't have to be nearly as bad to still be a mega-disaster.
4] Flood damage will be the worse and most costly ever seen in the US.
5] $225 Billion ( a little optimism here)
These are the GOP's peep's. TX is as red as a boil. The GOP pols will have to cough up the $$. No privatization plans here. Welcome to reality.
14
So true. The real estate market in Houston is virtually over. You'd be surprised how much the act of selling houses drives the rest of a local economy. Trickle down economics applies mainly to real estate. My heart breaks for the homeowners and want-to-be homeowners and agents/brokers in the southeast Texas area. God speed from this real estate brokerage firm owner. I imagine the real estate community will also be the first to rise up and clean up.
It seems that the government and the general public don't really care. The small, extremely wealthy industrialists certainly don't care. They would sell their souls for a few more millions.
8
The fact of changing weather patterns is neither new nor surprising. What is surprising is the luddite notions surrounding discussion. Focusing on the necessary infrastructure, as the Japanese and Danish have done, marginalizes the idiotic zealots and sloganeers while addressing the situation. Greedy banks and developers can be prevented from developing shorelines and natural boundries that protect against surges. Instead the media would rather namecall and invent obstacles to daily life for those not wealthy enough to summer in Cannes. We note how each and every progressive mania impacts the working classes. We note how every failure of the liberal state - be it eliminating drafting kids from well to do families, barring the working classes from elite universities through "legacy" policies, sending their jobs overseas or replacing them with unpaid robotics, or ruining public schools with unions, slogans and the continued employment of miscreants as teachers - is somehow someone else's problem to solve. Time is running out before torches and the modern version of pitchforks come-a-calling.
1
To David Leonhardt--I heard the exact same "humans are to blame for hurricanes" argument after Super Storm Sandy came tearing through my neighborhood five years ago. If only we could change our wasteful habits by giving up our cars then the impact of climate change would be reversed. Hurricanes would magically disappear. Guess what happened? Absolutely nothing!!! Even with the rise of electric cars and hybrids we're still polluting the air by driving those nasty cars with their gas burning internal combustion engines. People are not going to give up their automobiles and all the lectures about climate change isn't going to change that.
Oh did I forget to mention that the ultimate irony of this tragedy is that Houston's wealth comes primarily from the fossil fuel industry?
Oh did I forget to mention that the ultimate irony of this tragedy is that Houston's wealth comes primarily from the fossil fuel industry?
6
It is not in the interests of the Republicans and the fossil fuel industry to acknowledge climate change as being caused by human activity. As long as the fossil fuel industry funded federal legislature subsidizes the oil and gas companies (tax breaks, depletion allowances etc) that they do not give to the sustainable fuel industry, this will continue.
To heck with the scientific evidence
To heck with the scientific evidence
10
"Some version of Harvey probably would have happened without climate change, and we’ll never know the hypothetical truth."
That would be the version of Harvey with less rainfall and the one where the storm didn't shelter in place?
An NPR announcer opined that Harvey is a storm that happens once every 500 or 1000 years.
No! Harvey can happen every year now and probably hasn't happened since well before the glacial morraine im writing from was laid down 10,000 years or so ago.
When did we last have 400ppm CO2 plus high Methane and reduced forest cover? Maybe 100,000 years ago?
No, meet Harvey, the new normal.
That would be the version of Harvey with less rainfall and the one where the storm didn't shelter in place?
An NPR announcer opined that Harvey is a storm that happens once every 500 or 1000 years.
No! Harvey can happen every year now and probably hasn't happened since well before the glacial morraine im writing from was laid down 10,000 years or so ago.
When did we last have 400ppm CO2 plus high Methane and reduced forest cover? Maybe 100,000 years ago?
No, meet Harvey, the new normal.
11
The effects of climate change are devastating in the first world - they're far worse in the third world. The current refugee crisis is a trickle compared to what it will become - as wars erupt over basic resources like water and fertile land.
A lot of the change is now baked in and it will be bad enough. Still pretending the change is not real and that we're not responsible for most of it is going to result in catastrophe.
Even in the US - how many more of these hurricanes hitting big cities would it take to start fomenting civil unrest and a cry to take this problem seriously?
A lot of the change is now baked in and it will be bad enough. Still pretending the change is not real and that we're not responsible for most of it is going to result in catastrophe.
Even in the US - how many more of these hurricanes hitting big cities would it take to start fomenting civil unrest and a cry to take this problem seriously?
2
Is it fair to ask the citizens of Houston, New Orleans, and New York City to bear the brunt of poor political decisions? Should the will of climate change deniers affect the many? The fossil fuel industry, an economic beast whose advocates occupy the White House, is ruled by economic denial. These floods cost trillions, and more so in broken lives, broken families, broken marriages, and lost hope. The emotional burden is incalculable. In solidarity to Houston, can we drive less, walk more, take public transportation, and shrink these economic beasts who wrongly believe that they can impose their will on Mother Earth.
4
During the Bush administration, VP Cheney said that "if there was even a 1 percent chance of terrorists getting a weapon of mass destruction, the United States should act as if it were a certainty." Perhaps President Trump & the Republicans should apply this same argument to climate change.
8
mr leonhardt is perhaps asking too much...his excellent geography of the realm destroyed by harvey offers a foundation, agenda, for cogent debate of all factors, from water temperature to zoning...alas, cogent debate has already succumbed to the intellectual climate change that has us unable to muster attention for anything more complex than a bumpersticker and unable to respond to challenge with anything more subtle than a brick through a window.
in a parsing of the categories suggested in today's column there is considerable science, contrary to the hasty, dare one say, knee-jerk, dismissal (of a challenge to "grapple" with the unfamiliar, if you will) by some commenters today and lots of electeds every day).
curious, given the high stakes, that sentiment does not favor caution, certainly a "conservative" habit, a "better safe than sorry" effort to address alternatives, say, for example, a manhattan-project type of effort to create a solar/tidal powered grid for electric vehicles, which would be a yoooge help... difficult (again, the rub for a society addicted to convenience) but do-able.
instead we sit, like the proverbial frogs in the sauce pan, enjoying the hot tub, even as the temperature rises to its eventual and fatal boil.
in a parsing of the categories suggested in today's column there is considerable science, contrary to the hasty, dare one say, knee-jerk, dismissal (of a challenge to "grapple" with the unfamiliar, if you will) by some commenters today and lots of electeds every day).
curious, given the high stakes, that sentiment does not favor caution, certainly a "conservative" habit, a "better safe than sorry" effort to address alternatives, say, for example, a manhattan-project type of effort to create a solar/tidal powered grid for electric vehicles, which would be a yoooge help... difficult (again, the rub for a society addicted to convenience) but do-able.
instead we sit, like the proverbial frogs in the sauce pan, enjoying the hot tub, even as the temperature rises to its eventual and fatal boil.
2
Why would anyone choose this moment of human suffering to pontificate on the environmental mistakes that have contributed to storm? Clearly the author has never personally experienced a natural disaster. There will be plenty of opportunities to evaluate our contributions to this disaster when the rain stops and the citizens of Huston are safe.
1
As one who lives in an area that has seen unprecedented, record- breaking flooding TWICE in the last 3 years, I can tell you how your suggestion plays out. People clean up and forget about it. They keep doing the same stupid things. Nobody wants to address change. The time to discuss is immediate, or it will just happen again.
2
Climate change has trapped millions of people in a flooded city, just as the Republican Party now holds hostage the majority of Americans who understand the urgency of the problem. There is no mystery how the Republican Party embraced willful ignorance. People like Rupert Murdoch and the Koch brothers put their billions of dollars at work to convince millions of conservative voters that climate change was a hoax perpetrated by the evil liberals who hate America and want to destroy its capitalist economy. Now these people have elected a Denier in Chief who is systematically removing every federal government regulation we have that would allow us to deal with the problem. The result is that the U.S. has become a disgrace to humanity, the more so because the majority of Americans who understand the seriousness of the moment are powerless to influence the minority of ignorant voters who hold all the political power. The only hope for a return to sanity is for this country to destroy the Republican Party root and branch from the body politic, along with its media manipulators like Fox News and talk radio, and replace it with a center-right party that respects science, deals in reality, and abides by the Constitution. We can have a liberal democracy in this country that is capable of dealing with climate change, or we can have the Republican Party, but we can't have both.
6
If our nation is going to spend money on walls, then hurricane barriers to block storm surges from future hurricanes make a good investment. A border wall with Mexico is a waste of resources. Harvey caused flooding from rain but often storm surges are killers. Is Texas protected?
1
Excellent reporting. Texas flooding now, as droughts elsewhere, have been occurring more frequently and with more severity. When considered together, there is no question that only a crazy loon would doubt that man-made climate change (warming) is upon is. Whta is galling is having a willful ignoramus in the presidency denying the evidence, highly suspicious for malignant intent. Not only deleterious, dangerous, for the Unites States, but for the world. Can we allow hypocrisy to make progress, knowing we are one of the greatest polluters on Earth, and looking the other way while poorer countries pay the price in catastrophic events we contributed in their occurrence?
3
As the planet warms from CO2 emissions and the atmospheric humidity levels rise, Harvey is just the kind of weather that we can expect to see more of. Ocean waters are warming and rising. Monster storms are brewing. The great irony in all of this is that the city of Houston is the oil capital of Texas and as such has benefited greatly from the American oil industry. It is the USA’s fourth largest city and a major CO2 facilitator emitter.
Oh yes, I should add that CO2 is also the cause of the methane now bubbling out of the Arctic. Very large methane hydrate deposits exist below the Arctic land and adjacent ocean areas. Scientists say they represent 100 times the amount needed to cause another Permian style major planetary extinction event.
This methane hydrate feedback loop will begin to “kick in” after a 2 C degrees (3.6 F) increase in global temperatures. Our civilization is approaching that 2 C figure. Global temperatures throughout the planet will then rise rapidly. Many scientists are telling us that as a result the feedback loop, temperatures far in excess of 4 C degrees are predicted due to a runaway increase in Methane. Over a 100-year timeframe methane is about 35 times more potent than carbon dioxide, over 20 years 84 times more potent.
If you think Houston has a problem, just wait; you my Donald Trump skeptical friends and your progeny do too.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
Oh yes, I should add that CO2 is also the cause of the methane now bubbling out of the Arctic. Very large methane hydrate deposits exist below the Arctic land and adjacent ocean areas. Scientists say they represent 100 times the amount needed to cause another Permian style major planetary extinction event.
This methane hydrate feedback loop will begin to “kick in” after a 2 C degrees (3.6 F) increase in global temperatures. Our civilization is approaching that 2 C figure. Global temperatures throughout the planet will then rise rapidly. Many scientists are telling us that as a result the feedback loop, temperatures far in excess of 4 C degrees are predicted due to a runaway increase in Methane. Over a 100-year timeframe methane is about 35 times more potent than carbon dioxide, over 20 years 84 times more potent.
If you think Houston has a problem, just wait; you my Donald Trump skeptical friends and your progeny do too.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
5
It would seem that there will be no political will to do anything, ( republicans are irrelevant ~ it is the money powers that be ) until the taps start to run dry. That is metaphorically speaking about cash and literally speaking about water.
Climate liars ( they know in their brain what the real is, but are bought off ) will continue to ''spout'' whatever their backers demand , until said backers start to lose money. It is just that simple.
If people cannot farm, or even drink\live, then no more customers.
Climate liars ( they know in their brain what the real is, but are bought off ) will continue to ''spout'' whatever their backers demand , until said backers start to lose money. It is just that simple.
If people cannot farm, or even drink\live, then no more customers.
4
Do you want to get real about climate change? Then listen up.
The amount of CO2 measured in 2005 was less than it is now.
The number of Cat3, Cat4, and Cat5 hurricanes between Cat5 Katrina in 2005 and Cat4 Harvey in 2017 was ZERO.
Your evidence for CO2 or Humans causing "climate change" is: ZERO.
Please avoid science, Mr Leonhardt. Because what you - and therefore, James Hansen - are pushing, is NOT science.
The amount of CO2 measured in 2005 was less than it is now.
The number of Cat3, Cat4, and Cat5 hurricanes between Cat5 Katrina in 2005 and Cat4 Harvey in 2017 was ZERO.
Your evidence for CO2 or Humans causing "climate change" is: ZERO.
Please avoid science, Mr Leonhardt. Because what you - and therefore, James Hansen - are pushing, is NOT science.
2
KarlosTJ.
The planet is not contained within the continental borders of the US. Please revise your figures taking in consideration the WHOLE surface of the planet earth.
The planet is not contained within the continental borders of the US. Please revise your figures taking in consideration the WHOLE surface of the planet earth.
3
See evidence that proves the opposite of your statement:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_intense_tropical_cyclones...
2
We, who are amazed at those who deny man made climate change, fail to understand that their disbelief is not from ignorance of scientific method or findings, but is related to the greed of those with vested interests in the fossil fuel industry and the propaganda they promote to sway the less sophisticated. The dire situation we are in now, and it will get much worse if nothing is done, demands that the vocal deniers on the right be exposed for what they are: morally corrupt, bought off and willing to literally endanger the fate of human existance to hoard their gold. When this corruption is exposed and their followers realize they have been swindled and sacrificed for greed, then real action on climate change can proceed.
343
There's also another dimension to climate change denial. People love to feel victimized. The argument goes something like "If China is doing it..." This despite our colossal responsibility in anthropomorphic climate change. The epic proportions of the threat further diminish our ability to react. People hide in the relative safety of anonymity. When the entire world is involved, no one person feels personally responsible. Tragedy of the commons I suppose. Although, you're correct to note that relatively few benefit from it's global destruction. So the world isn't really a commons after all.
2
Anthony, those who deny global warming in order to continue to "fill their coffers" couldn't care less about morality or ethics. They understand only power and have no shame in using their money to protect their hoard. By the time people actually complain enough to be thought about at all, their grandchildren will be staring at biological collapse for most species, including our own.
2
Those who refuse to acknowledge the effect of continued population growth are also at fault. The Guardian's chart, which compares the effect of having fewer children to actions such as living car-free, is an eye-opener:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climat...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climat...
If reason and logic were the primary determinants of politicians' actions, the U.S. and the world would be a much better place. But money talks.
3
Climate change scientists agree that emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere play a significant role in the power of hurricanes, especially with respect to rainfall.
Trump intends to withdraw from the Paris Accord, and has signed executive orders revoking Obama's that building infrastructure in flood zones is not really prudent and that new building need not consider risk–management standards when building in areas subject to hurricanes. Texan politicians at all levels have worked against programs to mitigate global climate change (GCC); yet, they seek aid to deal Harvey's impacts.
To stay at or below a "safe" concentration of GHG emissions introduces urgency to reduce our emissions of GHGs. A temperature increase of 1.5 C degree is the upper level for safe mean atmospheric temperatures from GHGs, and already the temperature has increased about 1.1 C due to past emissions.
The citizens of Texas impacted by "Harvey" deserve our support and compassion. However, billions of poor people across the world also have a right to not be harmed by, say, the historical and current GHG emissions since they have contributed least to GCC.
Given the impacts of "Harvey," it might be a good time for Texan local, state, and federal politicians to stop denying GCC as a serious problem and work hard to develop policies and programs to mitigate GCC–both so that risks of GCC become less to Texans as well as less to other peoples of the world.
Trump intends to withdraw from the Paris Accord, and has signed executive orders revoking Obama's that building infrastructure in flood zones is not really prudent and that new building need not consider risk–management standards when building in areas subject to hurricanes. Texan politicians at all levels have worked against programs to mitigate global climate change (GCC); yet, they seek aid to deal Harvey's impacts.
To stay at or below a "safe" concentration of GHG emissions introduces urgency to reduce our emissions of GHGs. A temperature increase of 1.5 C degree is the upper level for safe mean atmospheric temperatures from GHGs, and already the temperature has increased about 1.1 C due to past emissions.
The citizens of Texas impacted by "Harvey" deserve our support and compassion. However, billions of poor people across the world also have a right to not be harmed by, say, the historical and current GHG emissions since they have contributed least to GCC.
Given the impacts of "Harvey," it might be a good time for Texan local, state, and federal politicians to stop denying GCC as a serious problem and work hard to develop policies and programs to mitigate GCC–both so that risks of GCC become less to Texans as well as less to other peoples of the world.
7
I am here in Katy TX living through this horrible storm, Harvey. I was a resident in Hancock county MS for Katrina. I thought Katrina was the worse thing I had ever seen, and it was devastating to the area and all of the people and animals.
This will take years to overcome. Some may never overcome. Some have passed away. It is still raining, this is Tuesday. It may be Thursday before it stops No work since Friday. The cost of this denial of global warning is great. The pollution caused by all of the different industrial businesses in TX is obvious, but the powers that control this state and country think that denial is a sport. Just make lots of money now and forget the cost on human life.
Defunding the EPA is not going to help.
Thanks for your reporting. It is excellent.
This will take years to overcome. Some may never overcome. Some have passed away. It is still raining, this is Tuesday. It may be Thursday before it stops No work since Friday. The cost of this denial of global warning is great. The pollution caused by all of the different industrial businesses in TX is obvious, but the powers that control this state and country think that denial is a sport. Just make lots of money now and forget the cost on human life.
Defunding the EPA is not going to help.
Thanks for your reporting. It is excellent.
19
"What’s happening in Texas is heartbreaking, and yet it will be a more frequent part of modern life unless we do something about it. That, ultimately, is the most compassionate message about Harvey."
In fact, David, the violence of storms, the severity of drought, the extremes of heat will only become greater, obviously.
What a legacy for the grandkids. What a statement about the "civilized" nature of our species and its inane chatter. Democritus and Epicurus knew exactly how the play will end.
And where, exactly, have all the current (investing) academics fled ?
In fact, David, the violence of storms, the severity of drought, the extremes of heat will only become greater, obviously.
What a legacy for the grandkids. What a statement about the "civilized" nature of our species and its inane chatter. Democritus and Epicurus knew exactly how the play will end.
And where, exactly, have all the current (investing) academics fled ?
4
"And where, exactly, have all the current (investing) academics fled ?"
We were defunded so our government can afford tax cuts and wars.
We were defunded so our government can afford tax cuts and wars.
2
Smoking and cancer provide the near perfect metaphor for climate change and severe weather. It is scientifically impossible to point to a specific case of cancer and pronounce that with certainty that it was directly caused by smoking. Cancer can be brought on my a combination of factors, including genetics, environmental factors, smoking and even just plain bad luck. For that reason, all that can be said is that the fact that the patient was a smoker most likely -- or even "almost certainly" -- contributed to the cancer.
The same is true for climate change and severe weather, includuing hurricanes. (Just as lung cancer is one type of cancer linked to smoking, hurricanes are one type of severe weather linked to climate change.) While it is impossible to state categorically that "climate change caused hurricane Harvey," climate change is making it much more likely that such events will occur. A few degrees in gulf water temperatures set the groundwork for hurricanes.
The other way in which smoking is a great metaphor for climate change is that for decades many -- at times, even most -- people discounted the link between smoking and cancer. The public's lack of faith in scientific research was fueled by big tobacco companies and the deliberately misleading pseudo-research they funded. Substitute "big fossil fuel energy companies" for "big tobacco" to understand why so many people remain skeptical of climate change in the fact of overwhelming scientific evidence.
The same is true for climate change and severe weather, includuing hurricanes. (Just as lung cancer is one type of cancer linked to smoking, hurricanes are one type of severe weather linked to climate change.) While it is impossible to state categorically that "climate change caused hurricane Harvey," climate change is making it much more likely that such events will occur. A few degrees in gulf water temperatures set the groundwork for hurricanes.
The other way in which smoking is a great metaphor for climate change is that for decades many -- at times, even most -- people discounted the link between smoking and cancer. The public's lack of faith in scientific research was fueled by big tobacco companies and the deliberately misleading pseudo-research they funded. Substitute "big fossil fuel energy companies" for "big tobacco" to understand why so many people remain skeptical of climate change in the fact of overwhelming scientific evidence.
5
Not to be too discouraging but since the tundra in Siberia (and northern Canada) began melting and rotting, producing methane, it's become quite clear that we have destroyed our environment.
There is no faster way to rid the world of a particular species than to remove their habitat. Can this problem be solved? Not with our current leadership.
There is no faster way to rid the world of a particular species than to remove their habitat. Can this problem be solved? Not with our current leadership.
6
"Harvey, the Storm That Humans Helped Cause".
As someone who happens to believe that man has indeed helped to cause global warming, there is nothing--absolutely nothing--in the actual article to support this headline.
The argument is mostly about the link between climate change and the weather, with one casual reference to a report claiming that it is "human-caused warming" thrown in.
The closest the author comes to providing evidence of "humans helping to cause a storm" is when he says that the zoning laws in Houston allowed for added pavement in recent years, which means that humans could be blamed for increasing the flooding, but that is quite different from saying that "humans caused the storm".
So where is the "evidence" that we're supposed to "add up" that "overwhelmingly suggests that human activity has helped create the ferocity of Harvey".
It's certainly not in this article.
As someone who happens to believe that man has indeed helped to cause global warming, there is nothing--absolutely nothing--in the actual article to support this headline.
The argument is mostly about the link between climate change and the weather, with one casual reference to a report claiming that it is "human-caused warming" thrown in.
The closest the author comes to providing evidence of "humans helping to cause a storm" is when he says that the zoning laws in Houston allowed for added pavement in recent years, which means that humans could be blamed for increasing the flooding, but that is quite different from saying that "humans caused the storm".
So where is the "evidence" that we're supposed to "add up" that "overwhelmingly suggests that human activity has helped create the ferocity of Harvey".
It's certainly not in this article.
2
"The daily surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico last winter never dropped below 73 degrees. You can probably guess how many previous times that had happened: Zero."
7
Higher water temperature in the Gulf resulting in more rain. I think that was pretty clear.
4
Here are my pedestrian thoughts: It seems there is irrefutable evidence that the climate is changing, and I personally believe that our insatiable need for energy and its byproducts and the ways we create, distribute, use and dispose of both are having an impact on our world. But the proof -- the indisputable, undeniable, unquestionable, incontrovertible, incontestable proof that human behavior is causal in the change of our climate is still missing for me.
I am not a scientist so I engage in a discussion on this topic at my peril. The only thing I know for certain is that we all need to work a lot harder together to preserve and protect the gift of this planet and the resources it so abundantly provides. The scientific method is not required to promote common sense!
I am not a scientist so I engage in a discussion on this topic at my peril. The only thing I know for certain is that we all need to work a lot harder together to preserve and protect the gift of this planet and the resources it so abundantly provides. The scientific method is not required to promote common sense!
1
Thank you for writing this. As early comments suggest (there are only 62 so far), many people have a deep-seated investment in not believing in climate change and nothing is going to change their minds. But climate change is real. Harvey -- as you say -- may have happened anyway but was intensified by all the conditions that climate change has already brought about. Events all over the globe reinforce that. Interesting to me is that the most vocal deniers live in areas most affected -- Texas, the south and the midwest have all seen drought and rain and tornados in recent years that are continually breaking records -- a 500 year flood, etc. now seems to occur somewhere every other year.
6
Regarding the value of scientific reticence to society on the whole, as a Ph.D. physicist I question your support of the mainstream view that scientific reticence is usually good. I doubt it in general, because without bold new ideas, science would never have made most the discoveries is has made. Scientists have to dare to be proven wrong, but most scientists don't like to be wrong, hence the prevalence of so much reticence. Regarding your support for a Manhattan Project for alternative energy, spending more than we do for R&D is certainly a good idea. But there are already so many good if not great renewable energy technologies that the US would not need any new technologies for the next several decades even if it began now to move quickly to eliminate the usage of all fossil fuels. The arguments by conservatives that we need more and better renewable energy technologies before we should commit more strongly to mitigate climate change is one main reason why the US is investing far too little to fight climate change.
11
The US is investing far too little in science period. "Belief" (largely in ones own self interest) has trumped fact and scientific evidence in the Age of Trump.
1
If Harvey isn't the wake-up call our leaders in government need to aggressively confront climate change, it is abundantly clear we just need a whole new set of leaders.
14
Many valid points. The Gulf is 3 degrees hotter than normal. It addition, normal keeps rising every year. The amount of water that storms drop is a function of the water temp, going up as temp goes up. The increase in ave water temp every year is caused by global climate changed which is caused by humans burning fossil fuels. The republican party is funded by the fossil fuel industry. Case closed Watson.
14
Do overproduction and overconsumption ring a bell? overproduction of CO2 is a consequence of a system caught up in this cycle. The same with the accumulation of moisture in the air and the energy of the ocean water which has served as a sink for mots of the CO2 emitted since the industrial revolution. Another system to satisfy human needs is necessary
6
It seems to me that the current framing of the discussion over climate change is a waste of time we don't have.
If I lose my job it does me and my family no good whatsoever to sit around trying to decide and agree on how much of my job loss was caused by market forces, bad management or my own actions instead of focusing on what I can change and getting a new job.
I would suggest that most people spend most of their lives solving life's problems by focusing on a solution and I don't understand why climate change should be any different.
Regardless of what percentage of climate change is or isn't caused by man, the only things we can change ARE man made. It's important from a scientific point of view to understand all of the processes involved but in terms of fixing or at least slowing the process down we already have more than enough information.
Every time the powers that be succeed in making the discussion about determining all of the causes instead of about fixing the problem we take a step backwards.
If I lose my job it does me and my family no good whatsoever to sit around trying to decide and agree on how much of my job loss was caused by market forces, bad management or my own actions instead of focusing on what I can change and getting a new job.
I would suggest that most people spend most of their lives solving life's problems by focusing on a solution and I don't understand why climate change should be any different.
Regardless of what percentage of climate change is or isn't caused by man, the only things we can change ARE man made. It's important from a scientific point of view to understand all of the processes involved but in terms of fixing or at least slowing the process down we already have more than enough information.
Every time the powers that be succeed in making the discussion about determining all of the causes instead of about fixing the problem we take a step backwards.
9
But if people don't accept the causes they won't do anything to fix the problem.
2
So if you lost your job would you need to determine and accept all of the contributing causes before you would look for a new one? Would you continue spending money at the same rate while you were trying to determine all of the causes or would you cut back?
I believe in science. I also believe that global warming is real and threatens our planet. I do not believe that humans cause hurricanes. There have been catastrophic hurricanes for centuries long before Hurricane Harvey. In 1972 Hurricane Agnes parked itself over the mid-Atlantic and destroyed tens of thousands of homes across Pennsylvania. There had never been a Hurricane like that before that stalled so deeply inland. Global warming was not a factor in that violent and destructive storm. Other storms that formed from the winds of Africa and crossed the Atlantic were not formed due to human activity. I am not denying global warming or our effect on climate. I am not denying climate change. The oceans are rising. The Polar ice caps are melting and glaciers are fading away too. But, Hurricanes are unique and powerful. The winds aloft and warming seas are not the sole determinant of the direction, power or intensity of those storms. Sea currents, volcanic activity (ash thrown into the atmosphere) and other factors including El-nino and El-nina also effect a hurricane's intensity if not total ability to form at all. A hurricane will also bring a vast cooling effect over millions of square miles as it rushes to shore making land fall with torrential, cooling rain. Rivers, plateaus, streams and creeks are greatly changed by the powerful deluge of water. Yes, there is climate change. But humans are not responsible for hurricanes and their devastation. Not yet.
4
The article never said that hurricanes were caused by humans. Read it more carefully.
13
Of course humans aren't responsible for hurricanes. But can the warmer sea temperatures we create by our CO2 emissions contribute to their intensity? You bet!
224
True, no single event is caused by global warming. However, every single event may be intensified by it. The article makes this clear: historically warm water temperatures in the Gulf provide more energy and more moisture, so any event that starts offshore passes through this energy source and becomes much more destructive. We have warmed the waters, and the waters have fueled the storm.
7
It's not just a question of climate change, where impacts of individual actions are hard to measure, but of preventive action and water management. Can Houston and other cities learn from experts like the Dutch about how to better handle massive quantities of water hitting their city? And about all that pavement, there is surely a lot that can be done to reduce the impact of impervious surfaces.
3
The only ones that are listening to this obvious relationship are those that believed that climate change was a problem in the first place. The oblivious republican party wont be swayed. Remember in a recent winter, James Inhofe brought a snowball to the senate floor to prove there is no global warming. Bet all these oil refineries collect whatever they can from the government though because of the storm they caused!
8
Man is consuming the planet and polluting it faster than the planet can naturally recover- scientists say we are in 'overshoot'. This is of course not sustainable and will lead to a collapse of our environment. I am not sure why we focus solely on climate change, which while true, is complex, and hard to explain and measure accurately. We have so many other things we measure that everyone can understand- water table level drops, farm soil loss, coral reef loss, rainforest loss, desertification, fish depletion, etc. Climate change, while probably the worst, is only one symptom of our population and technology explosion upon the Earth. And, reducing CO2 will not solve all our problems if the underlying symptom of uncontrolled growth does not stop.
I believe some people use climate change as a crutch. They think that if we can't prove climate change, then we are can't prove we are destroying the planet. Look around and there are plenty other facts that should convince people that we need to control our population and economic growth.
I believe some people use climate change as a crutch. They think that if we can't prove climate change, then we are can't prove we are destroying the planet. Look around and there are plenty other facts that should convince people that we need to control our population and economic growth.
21
"Out of an abundance of academic caution — a caution that is in many ways admirable — scientists (and journalists) have obscured climate change’s true effects."
Statistics, history and models can be used to determine what relationships cross a threshold of uncertainty from random to probable effects. You can’t invoke science and then discard the portions that inconveniently don’t support your beliefs and pass it off as science. To do so is promoting deliberately crafted misinformation, sometimes also called propaganda, of which denial is a subset.
NOAA makes the case clear on climate change and hurricanes, regarding number, size and intensity. Future studies may have different results. Harvey is an especially destructive storm because it stalled over a developed flood plain on the coast. You won't be any better than climate change deniers if you promote a different type of misinformation, you just reinforce their beliefs.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario).
Statistics, history and models can be used to determine what relationships cross a threshold of uncertainty from random to probable effects. You can’t invoke science and then discard the portions that inconveniently don’t support your beliefs and pass it off as science. To do so is promoting deliberately crafted misinformation, sometimes also called propaganda, of which denial is a subset.
NOAA makes the case clear on climate change and hurricanes, regarding number, size and intensity. Future studies may have different results. Harvey is an especially destructive storm because it stalled over a developed flood plain on the coast. You won't be any better than climate change deniers if you promote a different type of misinformation, you just reinforce their beliefs.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
Anthropogenic warming by the end of the 21st century will likely cause tropical cyclones globally to be more intense on average (by 2 to 11% according to model projections for an IPCC A1B scenario).
2
Whether climate change is already involved or not as a causal factor in hurricanes in the Gulf can be debated, but the stupidity of the people of Houston cannot. We will all pay for their refusal to adopt sane zoning laws. The fact that the two Texas Senators opposed funding for recovery efforts after Sandy only makes this that much more galling.
There is a lesson 45 year old lesson for Houston in Rapid City, South Dakota. In 1972, that city was inundated with a 15 inch rainfall from a stalled thunderstorm which destroyed much of the downtown and residential areas and caused 238 deaths and over $160 million in damages. The city rebuilt, turning a substantial part of the flood plain into parks and other green space. Perhaps this will be the fate of Houston with subdivisions replaced with open land and asphalt returned to open prairie. And maybe, just maybe, we will gain a new respect for science and climate in the wake of nature's tragic current lesson.
11
"The daily surface temperature of the Gulf of Mexico last winter never dropped below 73 degrees. You can probably guess how many previous times that had happened: Zero."
Really? In the entire history of the earth, there has never been another year when 73 degrees was the daily low for the Gulf of Mexico? Perhaps the author meant to add a critical phrase: "During the limited period of time during which measurements have been taken, ..."
The earth has undoubtedly had more extreme climates than we observe at present and somehow animal life survived. How else do we observe dinosaur fossils further north and glacial evidence further south than current weather patterns deem possible?
Nevertheless, there is likely a causal link between human activity and some degree of global warming. The most prudent policy to ensure that mankind survives future extreme weather would be to start immediately on the path to massively reduce our ecological footprint. 650 million humans enjoying a middle class standard of living should be sustainable, so let's start today on the path to 90% fewer people. Anything less than that is a half measure.
Really? In the entire history of the earth, there has never been another year when 73 degrees was the daily low for the Gulf of Mexico? Perhaps the author meant to add a critical phrase: "During the limited period of time during which measurements have been taken, ..."
The earth has undoubtedly had more extreme climates than we observe at present and somehow animal life survived. How else do we observe dinosaur fossils further north and glacial evidence further south than current weather patterns deem possible?
Nevertheless, there is likely a causal link between human activity and some degree of global warming. The most prudent policy to ensure that mankind survives future extreme weather would be to start immediately on the path to massively reduce our ecological footprint. 650 million humans enjoying a middle class standard of living should be sustainable, so let's start today on the path to 90% fewer people. Anything less than that is a half measure.
5
And it all begs the question none of us wants to ask: is it time to abandon our coastal communities?
5
Unless some sort of exotic methods are used for coastal cities to accommodate rising seas and heavier rainfalls, relocation is inevitable. Spending tens of billions to rebuild cities in place only to be inundated again in a few years is lunacy.
1
The deniers will always find reasons to deny. Climate change is complicated when it comes to day-to-day experience. So, no single storm can be attributed to climate change, though we do hear that patterns are not only changing, but weather is getting more intense - at least in some places.
In Chicago the climate seems to be getting more temperate. Though I read recently that climate change would create more intense heatwaves in this region, we are coming to the end of our 3rd summer which has been on the cool side. We have had no intense heat waves this year, though a few isolated 90 degree days. It has been below normal (mid to upper 70s for weeks at a time). Likewise, last winter we literally had no snow on the ground for more than 2 months - highly unusual for Chicago - also a moderating event compared to past Chicago winters. Hard to know what's up with all that - winters warmer, summers cooler - neither what is predicted as an effect of climate change... I believe it is real, but there is certainly much in our Chicago weather experience to feed the deniers' story.
In Chicago the climate seems to be getting more temperate. Though I read recently that climate change would create more intense heatwaves in this region, we are coming to the end of our 3rd summer which has been on the cool side. We have had no intense heat waves this year, though a few isolated 90 degree days. It has been below normal (mid to upper 70s for weeks at a time). Likewise, last winter we literally had no snow on the ground for more than 2 months - highly unusual for Chicago - also a moderating event compared to past Chicago winters. Hard to know what's up with all that - winters warmer, summers cooler - neither what is predicted as an effect of climate change... I believe it is real, but there is certainly much in our Chicago weather experience to feed the deniers' story.
2
In other words there's no evidence whatsoever this, or any other, hurricane (weather event) is linked in any way to climate change.
3
And in the Seattle / Puget sound area it is the 3rd year in a row the giant Omega High has been parked off our coast. With this summer being the longest and worst stretch of heat, no rain and now smoke from forest fires.
I couldn't tell you who or what has changed the weather here, but it HAS changed. Likely influenced by human activity. It cannot be sustained & regardless of political affiliation - our offspring will be paying a big big price for our disinterest & mismanagement of the planet. Humans are plainly not evolved enough to take care of what they have.
I couldn't tell you who or what has changed the weather here, but it HAS changed. Likely influenced by human activity. It cannot be sustained & regardless of political affiliation - our offspring will be paying a big big price for our disinterest & mismanagement of the planet. Humans are plainly not evolved enough to take care of what they have.
2
Texans and Louisianans might have learned the folly of continued reliance on fossil fuels from the Deepwater Horizon, 2010's unprecidented disaster.
Instead, they were bombarded with oil company propaganda that left most somehow believing that liberals were to blame.
This will work out the same way, as soon as conservatives can come up with the talking points.
Instead, they were bombarded with oil company propaganda that left most somehow believing that liberals were to blame.
This will work out the same way, as soon as conservatives can come up with the talking points.
5
David Leonhardt in his Op-Ed assumes, as a starting point, that carbon dioxide from the use of fossil carbon fuels is the cause, or at least the majority of the cause of global warming. That causality assertion is still a matter of skepticism and dispute, as the present warming phase has been going on for over four hundred years and for most of that time, the warming has not correlated with the carbon dioxide released in fuel use. An observed change in a climate, or climates, whether this storm might be found to be part of that type of change, does not prove the cause. Correlation during the years 1975 to 1998 could well have been coincidental, and didn't prove a relationship. "Doing something", based on speculation, without clear knowledge of causes, would be less useful than taking direct actions to minimize the impact of future storms. Discussion should be about the highest and best uses of resources, not on unrealistic proposals that all the world's people stop using fossil carbon fuels.
2
The average temperature of the oceans has increased by 1°F over the last 100 years. That represents a massive amount of energy (equivalent to 10 billion atomic bombs like the one that destroyed Hiroshima). The only explanation for where that energy came from is the increased concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trapping heat energy that used to escape to outer space. There is also no explanation for why greenhouse gases are not the causing this accumulation of energy. Actual skepticism would require such explanations.
Right now, the emissions already released to the atmosphere are guaranteed to continue heating the planet for decades, which is why every scientific academy and professional society is calling for an immediate and sustained effort to transition away from fossil fuels.
Right now, the emissions already released to the atmosphere are guaranteed to continue heating the planet for decades, which is why every scientific academy and professional society is calling for an immediate and sustained effort to transition away from fossil fuels.
4
Your response is typically an obtuse use of language that has little to do with the scientific evidence that is easy to find and read. Try it.
1
The other factor that makes Harvey so devastating is the fact that Texas has built an edifice of prosperity on loose regulations, development in places that should not be developed and refusal to pay the taxes that would create protections against this flooding.
Climate change seems daunting and people may deny it in self-protection. As we watch the tragedy of Houston unfold, we should try to make people learn the lessons of the debacle.
The lesson of New Orleans was that the federal government had to step in with competence and money. Our politicians learned that lesson.
The lesson of Houston is that natural disasters may be made worse by climate change, but people have to accept that effective regulations and paying for infrastructure are needed before tragedy happens. Free markets and individual responsibility will not do it.
Will we be distracted by the human interest stories or will we take the underlying lesson to heart?
Climate change seems daunting and people may deny it in self-protection. As we watch the tragedy of Houston unfold, we should try to make people learn the lessons of the debacle.
The lesson of New Orleans was that the federal government had to step in with competence and money. Our politicians learned that lesson.
The lesson of Houston is that natural disasters may be made worse by climate change, but people have to accept that effective regulations and paying for infrastructure are needed before tragedy happens. Free markets and individual responsibility will not do it.
Will we be distracted by the human interest stories or will we take the underlying lesson to heart?
123
I lived for 21 years in Texas and I heard plenty of times "I know my rights," or "It's a free country and I can do what I want," but never much about responsibility. Well, the chickens have come home to roost.
Another point: It seems incredible that after 12 years and billions of dollars, New Orleans' infrastructure is not in safe shape. 14 pumps not working? Where did all that money go? Probably into the hands of crooked politicians and Houston will only be worse, it will never totally recover because too many crooks are running the city. Yet people will vote more often for American Idol or America Got Talent, than in their local election and thereby keeping these crooks in office. Unfortunately, due to the fight for survival, no lesson will be learned.
Another point: It seems incredible that after 12 years and billions of dollars, New Orleans' infrastructure is not in safe shape. 14 pumps not working? Where did all that money go? Probably into the hands of crooked politicians and Houston will only be worse, it will never totally recover because too many crooks are running the city. Yet people will vote more often for American Idol or America Got Talent, than in their local election and thereby keeping these crooks in office. Unfortunately, due to the fight for survival, no lesson will be learned.
1
Nature fight backs for its dominance and survival and eventually it has to win because what would be the definition of Earth then?
Leonhardt -- unlike in journalism, in science you need facts. Your assertion that Harvey is a result of climate change is simply laughable. No single weather event provides evidence of climate change. If you want to count Harvey as evidence for, then how about 2006-2016 when no major hurricanes hit the US. Is that evidence against climate change?
Harvey is not unusual in terms of strength. As the following table shows, major hurricanes have hit the US on average of 6 times a decade since 1851.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
And as a link from an article in yesterday's Times says, the fact that gulf coastal waters were unusually warmer this winter has nothing to do with hurricane formation.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/a-sizzling-gulf-of-mexico-could-...
In order to demonstrate a relationship between climate change and hurricanes you need to see the avg number of major hurricanes go up and it hasn't.
What is unusual is that Harvey stalled over a major population center. And you can blame the flooding on overbuilding in a flood prone area so yes, the flooding is in large part man caused. And because it stalled with the eye over the gulf it is still pumping water out of the gulf. That's how hurricanes work.
Before everyone sets their hair on fire about Harvey being a result of CC, just remember if it had hit an uninhabited area it would be a yawn.
Harvey is not unusual in terms of strength. As the following table shows, major hurricanes have hit the US on average of 6 times a decade since 1851.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastdec.shtml
And as a link from an article in yesterday's Times says, the fact that gulf coastal waters were unusually warmer this winter has nothing to do with hurricane formation.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/a-sizzling-gulf-of-mexico-could-...
In order to demonstrate a relationship between climate change and hurricanes you need to see the avg number of major hurricanes go up and it hasn't.
What is unusual is that Harvey stalled over a major population center. And you can blame the flooding on overbuilding in a flood prone area so yes, the flooding is in large part man caused. And because it stalled with the eye over the gulf it is still pumping water out of the gulf. That's how hurricanes work.
Before everyone sets their hair on fire about Harvey being a result of CC, just remember if it had hit an uninhabited area it would be a yawn.
5
Actually, few climate change models suggest more frequent hurricanes. They predict more extreme hurricanes carrying more water. Harvey fits the predictive models for climate change exacerbated hurricanes very effectively, as Leonard notes. (Did you read his article? He talks about the stringent requirements of science).
15
PieChart -- look at the table. Look at the major hurricane column. Harvey isn't unusual historically. One major hurricane since 2005 is hardly proof of climate change. You are free to believe what you would like but no one with even a rudimentary understanding of statistics would agree that Harvey resulted from CC.
1
Ralphie, far more important than reading and comprehending the column is the opportunity to deny reality that doesn't fit your narrative. Try reding the column again without looking looking for places to insert your handy dandy talking points. Yeesh...
The irony of the capital of fossil fuels and climate denial getting hammered by this monster storm should not be lost on anyone. Some modern day Santayana needs to take Texas and a few other states by the metaphorical neck and scream, "Those who ignore scientific evidence of our effect on nature are condemned to suffer from it".
8
as was told to me a generation ago: "the evidence and effect of global warming is manifest in variability and not just averages". but then the meaning of the term variability is not likely understood by many, if not most, people. and many of those that do understand it seem only to care about preserving and increasing their wealth, which is already more than they can spend in one lifetime.
6
As you know, however (given your seeming quantitative bent) the people who truly couldn't spend all their money are few. Why shukkins, 90% of us could blow the entire wad on a single illness (especially with that 5-X-cost multiplier built into hospital charges) and soon enough 75% of us will need every cent just for insurance premiums, rent/mortgage payments, telecom fees and surcharges, bridge tolls, orange juice, and Greek yogurt. I left out gasoline, didn't I? If the aforementioned 75% decided they wanted to fossilize fossil at any cost, no Citizens-United-backed candidate would stand a chance against citizens united against smog. We hazmat the enemy.
Exactly how much effect climate change had on Harvey is beside the point. Climate skeptics need to understand that Harvey is what climate change looks like according to the climate models. For those who think moving to clean energy is too expensive and would damage the economy I ask how many wind farms and solar panel installations could we have built the same amount of money we will spend recovering from Harvey. This is only the beginning. There will be more storms like Harvey.
253
Would all of the wind farms and solar panels that you refer to have reduced gulf water or air temperatures measurably? No.
Its easy to yell "Climate Change". Its hard to come up with "realistic, effective" answers.
Its easy to yell "Climate Change". Its hard to come up with "realistic, effective" answers.
It's probably too late to reverse the damage that climate change is going to cause in the near to midterm future because there's already too much carbon in the atmosphere. The immediate priority needs to be learning how to cope with the environment as it's going to be for the next couple of hundred years. At the same time maybe science can provide answers on how to get carbon out of the atmosphere and gradually return the planet to a more climatologically stable place. (And also, of course, how to greatly decrease the amount of additional carbon we put in the atmosphere.)
6
Science can and has provided answers. Avoid deforestation and increase forest cover.
Of course geoengineering looms as the ultimate bad last chance arrow. Do not try that at home. Home planet, that is.
Of course geoengineering looms as the ultimate bad last chance arrow. Do not try that at home. Home planet, that is.
4
Bravo!
Now what is holding us back?
I recently quoted from Senator Whitehouse's new book "Captured":
“The problem of corporate control of our politics is correctable. We can stand up, push back, and make it right… However, there is one place where this corporate power can push us over a tipping point that is not correctable. That is climate change.”
I concluded:
"We are on a burning planetary ship traveling through space. We can estimate the number of needless deaths due to air pollution in the U.S. each day. What we have been unable to do is put out the fires fed by fossil fuel and other corporate powers with unlimited money. Hopefully, we will learn to politically and legally control the corporate supremacists before it is too late for all of us." See
http://www.legalreader.com/we-the-people-endangered-captured-and-dying/
Now what is holding us back?
I recently quoted from Senator Whitehouse's new book "Captured":
“The problem of corporate control of our politics is correctable. We can stand up, push back, and make it right… However, there is one place where this corporate power can push us over a tipping point that is not correctable. That is climate change.”
I concluded:
"We are on a burning planetary ship traveling through space. We can estimate the number of needless deaths due to air pollution in the U.S. each day. What we have been unable to do is put out the fires fed by fossil fuel and other corporate powers with unlimited money. Hopefully, we will learn to politically and legally control the corporate supremacists before it is too late for all of us." See
http://www.legalreader.com/we-the-people-endangered-captured-and-dying/
19
Republican campaign donors are what is holding us back.
2
You do realize that air pollution causes cools the Earth by blocking sunlight, not warms it?
Your political ideology is getting in the way of your common sense.
Your political ideology is getting in the way of your common sense.
And then there's science.
Scientists may not be able to prove that Harvey is the result of climate change - how do you do that? - but they can pull out their models, developed years ago, and show that storms like Harvey are part of the model's predictions.
We can keep denying it, but we'd better make sure that every household in a 500 year flood zone has insurance, a boat and a hospitable roof.
And we'd better be figuring out how to grow food without the Ogallala Aquifer, because the models predict monsoons in some places and desertification in a lot more.
So we can globally work to reduce our foot print. Or we can modify global populations- reduce the number of people in drought and flood areas like the Middle East and Bangladesh- change how and where we produce food, and create sea-gates to protect cities, and learn to build and plan for frequent disaster.
Instead we argue whether climate change is real, or really the driver of storms like Harvey. We argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, because it is easier than arguing about something that is real, and real important.
We can keep denying it, but we'd better make sure that every household in a 500 year flood zone has insurance, a boat and a hospitable roof.
And we'd better be figuring out how to grow food without the Ogallala Aquifer, because the models predict monsoons in some places and desertification in a lot more.
So we can globally work to reduce our foot print. Or we can modify global populations- reduce the number of people in drought and flood areas like the Middle East and Bangladesh- change how and where we produce food, and create sea-gates to protect cities, and learn to build and plan for frequent disaster.
Instead we argue whether climate change is real, or really the driver of storms like Harvey. We argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, because it is easier than arguing about something that is real, and real important.
158
The models are completely unreliable.
Unless you are ready to attribute the nine year stretch without a hurricane making landfall to global warming as well. Oh wait, the models didn't predict that. Hm.
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/major-hurricane-us-landfall-dr...
Unless you are ready to attribute the nine year stretch without a hurricane making landfall to global warming as well. Oh wait, the models didn't predict that. Hm.
https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/major-hurricane-us-landfall-dr...
After Harvey climate change is no longer an insidiously invisible phenomena: booming oil town with lax building codes and destroyed wet lands was washed away by a natural disaster fueled by rising moisture and ocean temperatures: nature on steroids coming back to haunt us. Harvey tormenting Houston shows the man made devastation of climate change under the microscope. When people have more trust in to their senses or the Bible than in science life on earth as we know it will cease.
Harvey might have been the last warning shot and wake up call. Floods, droughts, famine, pestilence and mass migration will be the future. We got a glimpse of it in August of 2017, Houston, we have a problem.
Harvey might have been the last warning shot and wake up call. Floods, droughts, famine, pestilence and mass migration will be the future. We got a glimpse of it in August of 2017, Houston, we have a problem.
47
Galveston was wiped out by a monster hurricane a century ago. It's still there today.
Houston is all wet right now, but it will be fine tomorrow, too.
You need a real disaster to worry about.
If you like, I could suggest a few.
Houston is all wet right now, but it will be fine tomorrow, too.
You need a real disaster to worry about.
If you like, I could suggest a few.
@opeteh
I doubt this is the last warning shot, but rest of the same paragraph is a virtual certainty. The "floods, droughts, famine, mass migrations" are already occurring. One need only to look at Africa and the Middle East.
I doubt this is the last warning shot, but rest of the same paragraph is a virtual certainty. The "floods, droughts, famine, mass migrations" are already occurring. One need only to look at Africa and the Middle East.
If you want to fix the problem, focus on overdevelopment. That is more easily within our immediate control, but we ignore the consequences and keep rebuilding where nature has repeatedly told us we shouldn't. My gosh, look at our huge, dense, vertical and growing coastal cities in the hurricane and typhoon zones around the world. Even if we magically stopped global warming today, hurricanes will continue and the destruction will continue to get worse.
21
And yet, after the storm is over, I have to assume the development will continue as usual in the Houston area. We as a society with our concept of land ownership have yet to find a way to tell people they cannot build on land they own. And, when we sit around and discuss solutions, halting growth is never an acceptable solution- we insist that any solution must solve the problem while allowing for more growth. After a while this becomes impossible.
5
It wasn't the severity of Harvey that caused all this flooding; it was its erratic, almost-stationary path, which had nothing to do with climate change. Yes, the hurricane blew up quickly in the Gulf because of the warm waters, but it was no more powerful than many other hurricanes that have hit the US over centuries. And while Houston's lack of zoning makes for an easy whipping boy, the fact is development in Houston, which relies on neighborhood covenants to manage land use, is not significantly different from that in Dallas or Atlanta, both of which have zoning.
2
As anyone who has visited Atlanta can attest, zoning and land use planning are two different animals. One involves trying to keep "incompatible" land uses apart, the other involves visualizing the future of the city and working toward that vision.
Yes, it's only because the hurricane isn't moving. That models predict fewer, but stronger hurricanes should be ignored. Nothing to see here folks. Return to your families.
Yes, it's only because the hurricane isn't moving. That models predict fewer, but stronger hurricanes should be ignored. Nothing to see here folks. Return to your families.
1
Its "erratic,almost stationery path" is a function of the slowing of the jet stream. And that is a function of androgenic climate change.
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.027700/full/
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.027700/full/
2
Its "erratic,almost stationery path" is a product of androgenic climate change. The jet stream's slowing is a function of those changes. oday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.027700/full/
5
Why do these articles always stop at, "unless we do something about it?"
Why not open the next door? Do what about it? Answer: Put a price on carbon emissions, for goodness sake! Studies from Citizens Climate Lobby and the Conservative Climate Solution have demonstrated that a Fee and Dividend strategy can reduce emissions while at the same time stimulating the economy. The propaganda to the contrary flows from fossil fuel companies fighting to protect ongoing profits.
Why not open the next door? Do what about it? Answer: Put a price on carbon emissions, for goodness sake! Studies from Citizens Climate Lobby and the Conservative Climate Solution have demonstrated that a Fee and Dividend strategy can reduce emissions while at the same time stimulating the economy. The propaganda to the contrary flows from fossil fuel companies fighting to protect ongoing profits.
165
One issue is 'why is so much rain falling'? A second issue is 'where does the water go after it reaches the ground'? That may also be influenced by human activity: "For the sake of efficiency, we can lump together the issues of wetland management, land-use planning and runaway development by looking at trends in Houston in recent years. In that urban centre, the fourth largest in the U.S., wetlands and other green space have been eaten up by rapid development. According to an analysis for the Houston Chronicle, between 1996 and 2010, the 14-county Houston region lost more than 54,000 acres of wetlands. This not only means that water simply has fewer places to go, but that more lives are put at risk and more property is damaged because of it."
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-the-us-wasnt-prepared-for-h...
https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-the-us-wasnt-prepared-for-h...
126
The severity of Harvey may be related to climate change but a more certain cause of the resulting damage is the rapid growth of Houston which has spread out over much of the land that, in former times, would have absorbed a lot of the flood water. Before any more expansion, and this applies to all metropolitan areas, studies should be made to determine the future possible impact of that expansion.
56
Meanwhile, over at www.judithcurry.com the perversity of the professional denialists continues with the once respected scientist, Dr, Judith Curry – who is often called to testify before Congress by Republican climate change deniers - stated “Anyone blaming Harvey on global warming doesn’t have a leg to stand on” (https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/27/hurricane-harvey-long-range-forecasts... ). Of course climate change did not create Harvey any more than it created the pine beetles eating western forests but the rapid heating of the atmosphere caused by human produced fossil fuel CO2 created the warmth that enables the beetles to march north and Harvey to carry more energy and water. My heart breaks for the future particularly for the children whose environmental security and livelihood we are collectively stealing from them,
86
There is a valid statistical correlation between climate change, atmospheric CO2, and the intensity of weather events. Unfortunately, those that deny the effect of climate change don't understand what a statistical correlation is.
When medical researchers state the efficacy of a therapy like a new drug, they use statistical correlations to prove it. But when a politician's mind is controlled by fossil fuel mania, that relationship is lost.
Here in Kansas City, it always gets hot and dry after the Fourth of July. August turns our lawns brown. This year, we have had tremendous rain in August. We have had two periods of flooding. Storms came through that dropped five to seven inches of rain in one night. This is unprecedented in August. This much rainfall in one storm event is very rare, let alone twice in the driest month of the year.
Something significant is going on. The climate is changing and changing fast. You don't need to be a scientist to see it. But you do have to open your eyes.
When medical researchers state the efficacy of a therapy like a new drug, they use statistical correlations to prove it. But when a politician's mind is controlled by fossil fuel mania, that relationship is lost.
Here in Kansas City, it always gets hot and dry after the Fourth of July. August turns our lawns brown. This year, we have had tremendous rain in August. We have had two periods of flooding. Storms came through that dropped five to seven inches of rain in one night. This is unprecedented in August. This much rainfall in one storm event is very rare, let alone twice in the driest month of the year.
Something significant is going on. The climate is changing and changing fast. You don't need to be a scientist to see it. But you do have to open your eyes.
445
There is more than a "statistical correlation" between atmospheric CO2 and climate change. There is a real correlation.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has charted it over the last 4 climate cycles over the last 120,000 years. You don't need to be a scientist to see it. Open your eyes and look.
Then talk.
The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has charted it over the last 4 climate cycles over the last 120,000 years. You don't need to be a scientist to see it. Open your eyes and look.
Then talk.
1
Sorry, Bruce, but you're confusing "correlation" with "causation". The former is required for the latter, but the former does not *imply* the latter. To infer causation from correlation you need a sound theory and controlled data collection. With cross-sectional data--like the facts you adduce in your comment--you cannot rule out alternative causal factors that could account for the data. So if you want to talk in causal terms about observed correlations, you are obliged to present your theory and make your argument that it is more plausible than any alternative explanation.
Bassler wrote: "So if you want to talk in causal terms about observed correlations, you are obliged to present your theory and make your argument that it is more plausible than any alternative explanation."
That is exactly what the climate scientists have done. You can read all about this at https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
unless the Trump minions have managed to delete it.
That is exactly what the climate scientists have done. You can read all about this at https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
unless the Trump minions have managed to delete it.
Observe Houston. Observe the impact. You can cheer the human spirit in surviving it; the camaraderie and pulling together in the face of crisis. But juxtapose this impact against the larger picture of global dynamic systems in motion under the impetus of us flooding them with carbon based energy effluence and the like. Consider how those systems, in response, are gearing themselves upwards in intensity. Then rejudge the impact in Houston; and contemplate this fact. Ours is a crystalline civilization. A bright, sparkly, beautiful edifice. Powerful to behold. And it's brittle.
John~
American Net'Zen
John~
American Net'Zen
7
We now know that those once promoting 'safe' products such as tobacco, asbestos and certain pesticides, no longer are considered to be responsible people. There was a certain amount of debate about the safety of those products, which is now settled, that they are all no longer viewed as safe for humans.
The same people who were promoting tobacco as safe, are now questioning climate science that says CO2 emissions are a major factor in global warming.
Having studied Climatology and Meteorology in the early 70's, I continued to be amazed that those with zero scientific background, are able to have their baseless anti climate science comments viewed as a response to peer reviewed climate scientists.
We know hurricanes get their energy from the time they develop over warm waters. Record warm waters have led to Hurricane Harvey's record flooding event that still continues. My heart goes out to those still suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Harvey.
Despite this being a 1:500 flooding event or worse, there are still many who see this incredibly abnormal event, as just part of the vagaries of normal weather. A 1:500 weather event is not normal.
We now know those promoting tobacco and asbestos have been shown to be wrong. How long will it be for those promoting fossil fuels and attacking peer reviewed climate scientists, to be confined to the dustbin of quacks who were shown to be wrong?
The same people who were promoting tobacco as safe, are now questioning climate science that says CO2 emissions are a major factor in global warming.
Having studied Climatology and Meteorology in the early 70's, I continued to be amazed that those with zero scientific background, are able to have their baseless anti climate science comments viewed as a response to peer reviewed climate scientists.
We know hurricanes get their energy from the time they develop over warm waters. Record warm waters have led to Hurricane Harvey's record flooding event that still continues. My heart goes out to those still suffering from the devastation of Hurricane Harvey.
Despite this being a 1:500 flooding event or worse, there are still many who see this incredibly abnormal event, as just part of the vagaries of normal weather. A 1:500 weather event is not normal.
We now know those promoting tobacco and asbestos have been shown to be wrong. How long will it be for those promoting fossil fuels and attacking peer reviewed climate scientists, to be confined to the dustbin of quacks who were shown to be wrong?
106
Liberals have a tendency to think they are smarter than everybody else, and they love to say I told you so. There has been a lot of this over the past few days.
Part of the reason that Harvey has been so damaging is the way it has lingered over Houston. That is unusual, and it has nothing to do with global warming. It is also important to remember that the Gulf Coast has always been hit by hurricanes. The connection between Harvey and global warming is a lot more tenuous than liberals are trying to claim.
It is fair to point out that warmer air holds a lot more moisture than cooler air. When saturated, air at 30C can hold over 3 times as much water as air at 10C, and there is a non-linear increase as temperatures rise. Scientists have long predicted that global warming would lead to more extreme rainfall events. Harvey might well be an example of that prediction starting to come true. However, claiming that Harvey is human caused is overstating the case.
Part of the reason that Harvey has been so damaging is the way it has lingered over Houston. That is unusual, and it has nothing to do with global warming. It is also important to remember that the Gulf Coast has always been hit by hurricanes. The connection between Harvey and global warming is a lot more tenuous than liberals are trying to claim.
It is fair to point out that warmer air holds a lot more moisture than cooler air. When saturated, air at 30C can hold over 3 times as much water as air at 10C, and there is a non-linear increase as temperatures rise. Scientists have long predicted that global warming would lead to more extreme rainfall events. Harvey might well be an example of that prediction starting to come true. However, claiming that Harvey is human caused is overstating the case.
3
I suppose it will only be convincing when we have sufficient data: when the AVERAGE rainfall associated with hurricanes is increased to catastrophic proportions. By then it will be too late to do anything about it.
In a similar vein:
-- many house fires occur in the absence of smoking in bed.
-- I fall asleep smoking in bed 2 or 3 times a week and my house hasn't burned down yet.
-- Quit telling me I should stop smoking in bed.
In a similar vein:
-- many house fires occur in the absence of smoking in bed.
-- I fall asleep smoking in bed 2 or 3 times a week and my house hasn't burned down yet.
-- Quit telling me I should stop smoking in bed.
24
Not human caused? How about human assisted my friend? Forget about the very real link to climate change and severe weather events. How about the tremendous expansion into flood plains by development without adequate consideration of how it impacts the natural water flows. Conservatives fight sound environmental regulations for protection of wetlands (natures flood control) almost at every turn.
By the way if you are looking for evidence that liberals are smarther that conservatives, just look who the conservatives voted for in 2017. SAD.
By the way if you are looking for evidence that liberals are smarther that conservatives, just look who the conservatives voted for in 2017. SAD.
72
Schrodinger has a tendency to think s/he is smarter than everybody else, and loves to say erroneous things. For example "Harvey has been so damaging [because] it has lingered over Houston. That is unusual, and it has nothing to do with global warming."
In fact, Harvey stalled over Houston because of unusual wind patterns, and it is obvious that wind patterns are altered by global warming -- higher temperature, more energy in the system, different wind patterns.
To claim, as Schrodinger does, that Harvey's lingering over Houston "has nothing to do with global warming" is overstating the case.
In fact, Harvey stalled over Houston because of unusual wind patterns, and it is obvious that wind patterns are altered by global warming -- higher temperature, more energy in the system, different wind patterns.
To claim, as Schrodinger does, that Harvey's lingering over Houston "has nothing to do with global warming" is overstating the case.
20
Thank you, Mr. Leonhardt!
Yes, no single event can be attributed to global warming, but weather patterns can be attributed to underlying causes.
Global warming is real, human intervention in the carbon cycle is real, and human civilization hangs in the balance.
Yes, no single event can be attributed to global warming, but weather patterns can be attributed to underlying causes.
Global warming is real, human intervention in the carbon cycle is real, and human civilization hangs in the balance.
22
I is pretty scary to think that even if the governments around the world would immediately start seriously limiting greenhouse gas emissions to slow down global warming the best we can hope for is a de-acceleration of the process. That means, events such as Harvey, and worse, will arrive not matter what.
13
Is it climate change or just coincidence that Southern Europe has this summer had prolonged searing heat and a vast number of wildfires started by lightning? While anyone can claim that no one incident proves climate change the ever larger numbers of such exceptional events must support the belief in climate change. Trump says it is a hoax so with all the lies he has told I am more convinced of the truth of climate change.
73
How can it ever be bad to clean up the environment?
People make no sense. The only people harmed here are big fossil fuels. And the people who work for them can move to jobs in clean energy.
People make no sense. The only people harmed here are big fossil fuels. And the people who work for them can move to jobs in clean energy.
228
While the workers can move, the owners of big fossil fuel have nowhere to go except to keep funding the politicians and climate change deniers
2
People can understand pollution much easier than they can understand climate change. We lost most people when the focus went from pollution to climate change. Climate change is a fuzzier term, easier for big energy folks to deny and to persuade people there is no causal link between dirty energy and such super storms. A burning river or a fishless river is much harder for corporate polluters to explain away, although corporations have teams of very persuasive explainers.
Though wanting to cut FEMA’s budget
He now pretends not to begrudge it,
He will come and pretend
He’s bringing the Storm’s end,
His Climate Change stand? Don’t misjudge it!
Will he come with largesse for lost homes
Or auction what his feral mane combs,
Infrastructure restore?
Beg if he can do more?
Brag about his brilliant chromosomes?
He now pretends not to begrudge it,
He will come and pretend
He’s bringing the Storm’s end,
His Climate Change stand? Don’t misjudge it!
Will he come with largesse for lost homes
Or auction what his feral mane combs,
Infrastructure restore?
Beg if he can do more?
Brag about his brilliant chromosomes?
100
Climate change may be the culprit for thur increasingly severe storms. The question remains whether anything can be done about climate change.
Is the increase of CO 2 concentration in the air from 0.03 to 0.04% really the cause? There are lots of computer projections and simulations, but no proof. With our entire economy even civilization at stake it should be possible to devise an experiment that proves that this tiny concentration of CO 2 can influence the heat balance of the earth. I would love to become a
believer.
Is the increase of CO 2 concentration in the air from 0.03 to 0.04% really the cause? There are lots of computer projections and simulations, but no proof. With our entire economy even civilization at stake it should be possible to devise an experiment that proves that this tiny concentration of CO 2 can influence the heat balance of the earth. I would love to become a
believer.
2
The question then is, what kind of proof would you want? What is proof for you?
Is the theory only proven by a world gone so awry that it is beyond repair, and then you would be willing to agree that something should be done because you are finally a believer? There is only one planet for this experiment. Beyond that, we really only have simulations and projections and mathematical models.
Is the theory only proven by a world gone so awry that it is beyond repair, and then you would be willing to agree that something should be done because you are finally a believer? There is only one planet for this experiment. Beyond that, we really only have simulations and projections and mathematical models.
342
Unfortunately, Walter, the level of proof you want is not possible, absent several planet Earths that we could run controlled experiments on.
This is a common situation where we do not have the luxury of waiting for absolute proof before taking serious action. Rather, we must depend for our decision on the preponderance of evidence on one side of the issue or the other.
We also must consider the Precautionary Principle. That includes considering how serious would be the outcome if we choose wrongly?. On the one hand, if we choose to ignore the preponderance of evidence and choose not to try to mitigate and reverse the negative effects our fossil-fuel-based economy is having on the environment, the result is most likely going to be disastrously increasing changes to the overall climate and intensity of specific weather events, and overheating of the planet to the degree that mammalian continuation of life may well become impossible. In short, what's the worst that could happen with that choice?: Human extinction as a species on this planet.
On the other hand, if we choose a crash program to transition away from our fossil-fuel-based system in favor of renewable energy, and we voluntarily go through the difficulties such a change will entail, only to find at the end of that difficult process that it was unnecessary, what's the worst that will happen? We'll at least have a clean earth, air, and water again.
In this case, the latter, harder choice is the right choice..
This is a common situation where we do not have the luxury of waiting for absolute proof before taking serious action. Rather, we must depend for our decision on the preponderance of evidence on one side of the issue or the other.
We also must consider the Precautionary Principle. That includes considering how serious would be the outcome if we choose wrongly?. On the one hand, if we choose to ignore the preponderance of evidence and choose not to try to mitigate and reverse the negative effects our fossil-fuel-based economy is having on the environment, the result is most likely going to be disastrously increasing changes to the overall climate and intensity of specific weather events, and overheating of the planet to the degree that mammalian continuation of life may well become impossible. In short, what's the worst that could happen with that choice?: Human extinction as a species on this planet.
On the other hand, if we choose a crash program to transition away from our fossil-fuel-based system in favor of renewable energy, and we voluntarily go through the difficulties such a change will entail, only to find at the end of that difficult process that it was unnecessary, what's the worst that will happen? We'll at least have a clean earth, air, and water again.
In this case, the latter, harder choice is the right choice..
428
Fortunately or unfortunately the universe, nature or climate doesn't care one bit about your beliefs. The universal laws of physics does not require anyone's faith. So you go right ahead, the rest of us will live evidence based lives.
50
Every gallon of gasoline emits 20lb of CO2 which stays in the atmosphere and absorbs heat. So, in one year, one car uses 250 gallons gasoline and produces 2 tons of CO2. We need to begin to think of car trips not in terms of dollars but in terms of lb's of CO2 emitted. There is no leadership in this area, we must do it ourselves and start limiting our vehicle use to save the world for our children and grandchildren.
134
That's a great idea, if your country has a working system of public transportation. But if you ever tour the US, you're going to need a car. I hope New Zealand is different.
4
I once had a partner who was a pip. He's been gone for years now -- he was older, retired, and predictably died of a massive heart attack within just a couple years of retirement. But he was something else. Among MANY stories of him is the one where he considered the plight of Biafrans and wondered aloud why they didn't just MOVE TO WHERE THE FOOD WAS.
Harvey and Houston are like that, although this consideration is a lot more politically correct. Our Gulf Coast has been hammered on an average of once every seven years with immense storms -- many of them hurricanes -- since we've been keeping careful records, over 150 years. You'd think those living there would consider the regular devastation and close calls, and MOVE TO WHERE IT'S SAFE. Same for those who live in Tornado Alley and barrier islands. But, no, they weather the devastation, take their losses and rebuild. In the case of Houston's general vicinity, we can only hope that the devastation doesn't extend to refinery facilities, where we could see an environmental catastrophe of biblical proportions.
Climate change is real, its challenge a pressing one. But when one of these major storms hits on average once every seven years, and has for so long, it's pretty safe to say that it's not caused by climate change -- even the power of those storms, as we often see Cat 4 storms. We've just been lucky that they rarely hit so squarely and linger so destructively for as long over a population center as Harvey has.
Harvey and Houston are like that, although this consideration is a lot more politically correct. Our Gulf Coast has been hammered on an average of once every seven years with immense storms -- many of them hurricanes -- since we've been keeping careful records, over 150 years. You'd think those living there would consider the regular devastation and close calls, and MOVE TO WHERE IT'S SAFE. Same for those who live in Tornado Alley and barrier islands. But, no, they weather the devastation, take their losses and rebuild. In the case of Houston's general vicinity, we can only hope that the devastation doesn't extend to refinery facilities, where we could see an environmental catastrophe of biblical proportions.
Climate change is real, its challenge a pressing one. But when one of these major storms hits on average once every seven years, and has for so long, it's pretty safe to say that it's not caused by climate change -- even the power of those storms, as we often see Cat 4 storms. We've just been lucky that they rarely hit so squarely and linger so destructively for as long over a population center as Harvey has.
10
You sure are treating climate change very casually. As they said about Harvey after it first landed, hold true for climate change, this is only the beginning. What you say only makes sense in a stable climate. It could turn out that moving will not be a choice but a necessity, for a lot of us. Science has been very accurate in predicting this storm and the climate trends in the last 30 years.
12
We are told by Richard and others like Richard that we cannot address climate change because of the adverse affect on the economy, growth and GDP.
So, I ask Richard, without any hope I will receive a thoughtful reply, why he denies the facts presented in the article?
And what, exactly, will be the affect on our GDP after the floods subside, and the FEMA money is disbursed, and the gas prices rise, and the people of Houston remain unemployed and unable to earn and spend money and pay taxes?
So, I ask Richard, without any hope I will receive a thoughtful reply, why he denies the facts presented in the article?
And what, exactly, will be the affect on our GDP after the floods subside, and the FEMA money is disbursed, and the gas prices rise, and the people of Houston remain unemployed and unable to earn and spend money and pay taxes?
8
There's a serious logical fallacy in the final paragraph's stated conclusion. It is not "safe to say....". In fact, it is foolish to say.
4