on August 29, 2017 in World News

Climatologist, Former NASA Scientist: ‘Houston Flood Not Sign of Climate Change’

“There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low.”

by Trey Sanchez

Houston is underwater after being slammed with rain brought to shore by Hurricane Harvey. Officials say it could be weeks before the roads are traversable. While the mainstream media and other alarmists are eagerly pegging human-caused global warming on the rising waters, others are saying, “Not so fast.”

One of them is climatologist and former NASA scientist Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. At his blog, Spencer said Harvey was nothing more than a “natural weather disaster.” They’ve “always occurred and always will occur,” he added. Spencer explains that global warming alarmists, like Al Gore, favor the dishonest tactic of “making naturally-occurring severe weather seem unnatural,” when all the while, there’s always a logical explanation:

Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.

There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet.

By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.

So far, according to Spencer, the flooding in Houston isn’t nearly as bad as it was over 80 years ago when the city had two million fewer people. But maybe a man-warmed Harvey brought in an “unprecedented” amount of rain? Not at all, says Spencer:

Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area…

There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.

Spencer compares the rainfall totals from Harvey, now around 40 inches over a few days, with the much-weaker 1979 Tropical Storm Claudette, which produced 43 inches of rain in just 24 hours in Houston. Aren’t these “unprecedented” weather events worsening because of man-made global warming? Not so, explains Spencer:

In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.

Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.

And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time – almost 12 years – without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.

In fact, Spencer is confused as to why everyone is calling Harvey “unprecedented”:

The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.

If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual.

They will break records for their individual gage locations, but that’s the kind of record that is routinely broken somewhere anyway, like record high and low temperatures.

In any case, I’d be surprised if such a meteorological event didn’t happen in centuries past in this area, before we were measuring them.

“‘Unprecedented’ doesn’t necessarily mean it represents a new normal,” Spencer concludes. “Weird stuff happens… Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of humans.”

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/climatologist-former-nasa-scientist-houston-flood-not-sign-climate-change

Tags: , , , , , , , ,


  • CraigK

    I suppose 40 days and 40 nights is still the record?????

  • Bruce Wayne

    Amazing how many morons there are. I guess they were always out there lurking in the shadows but with the advent of the Internet their stupidity is on display 24/7.

    • Doc Ryan

      Yep, they claim to be able to predict what’s going to happen 20 years from now but have great difficulty telling what’s going to happen next week.

      • Douglas Mullen

        Doc Ryan , Bruce Wayne 😁 , everyone ,
        About 2 12 months before the election in 2012 , I heard Sean Hannity, The Great One Marc Levin, and Rush Limbaugh talk about a thesis done by a student at Princeton, Harvard one of those big-time ivy league schools.
        His thesis was about the common intelligence level of humans.
        What it said basically was that the common intelligence level of the general population has been going down over the last 2 millenia.
        When I heard this the first time I laughed so hard my wife asked me why I was laughing so hard.
        I replied, ” Honey, I had that thesis boiled down to one sentence almost 25 years ago!
        ” Oh yeah? What was that? ”
        I replied,…………………. ” BABY, STUPID BEEN ALLOWED TO BREED
        WAY TO LONG!!!!!!!!!!!! 😂😈🙈🙉🙊

    • ladyblue

      Says wannabe batman

  • Phil Barnes

    Global warming has been around since the world was formed and our weather patterns have been cyclical ever since. It is not global warming as such, it is a natural phenomena, one that scientists (and pompous former politicians) have been getting rich from by scaremongering. All weather related catastrophes have occurred previously throughout history and will continue to do so periodically when conditions are right or wrong depending on your particular bent.

    • Kathy Dueck

      Thank you. Not all weather is related to politics….mostly just the ‘hot air’.

    • Acensustaker

      Climate is what we expect. Weather is what we get!

      • Phil Barnes

        Unsubscribe.

    • verafish

      Yes, of course, global warming may have occurred periodically since the world was formed but…there weren’t humans here who could be obliterated if the Earth’s temperature goes to one extreme or another. It’s not the planet that we’re worried about. It is the existence of *humanity* which is of great concern. To humans. Human life can exist within only a very small range of temperatures so you can see where we might be somewhat worried.

      • akboss

        Gee survival of the fittest? Oh thats right most liberals would die and the southern boys would just laugh and fish the day away. I know I would fish.

        • Corey Gray

          Not a lot of southern boys I know who can cope with 48 hours of ice fishing…if they’re right, that’s what you’ll need.

          However, since physics, history, art, and math all say their models are all wrong, I might just be right next to you, pissing you off every time my drunken ass accidentally casts over your line…lol

          • akboss

            I can but then I lived in Alaska for 35 years too.
            love to ice fish

          • Corey Gray

            Well shet my mouf’, then you’n is jus’ ’bout reddy fo shtf!

            Kidding with the lame “accent”…similar…WA state and northern IL, plus Georgia, Oklahoma, and Missouri…I’m about as mixed up an American as you can get…accent’s all over hell, as are the outdoor hobbies)

            You’re right, country folk will take it MUCH easier…don’t mean they’ll all take it easILY, though…lol

          • akboss

            nope some country folk are dumber than a rock. Conversely some city folk will know what to do. I have lived off a trot line, hunted grizzlies, stalk the dangerous lizard. If I had to live off the land I am in Beef heaven with only like 1,000,000 head of beef around me. I will be having beef for dinner.

          • akboss

            oh casting over my line earns you a cut line. Poor edicate especially when your king or silver fishin.

          • Corey Gray

            It was a wiseass joke…I know better than to cast across someone else…can’t survive 10 minutes in GA without learning that one.

            And yes, some country folk are dumber than a bucket of manure…but even then, most of them have basic survival skills, simply through their upbringing and hobbies they were most likely exposed to.

            How many country folk do you know who can’t fish, hunt, and (most likely) trap? How many don’t know at least the LOCAL edible plants? Most can open fire cook, and they usually know enough about outdoor living to be prepared to handle the elements, if they KNOW that’s what they’re going to be doing.

            Yes, there are SOME city folks (the ones I tend to refer to as “hothouse rednecks” – grown in an enclosed environment) who, nonetheless, learn basic survival skills to at least the point the average country Joe kind of soaks up through lifestyle, then builds on them..and often picks up a few very useful “city skills”, for a SHTF situation…the majority of the urban/suburban portion of this country? eeeeeeeeehhhhhhhh….prolly not.

      • akboss

        very small range of teps? Do you really say that? So when I was living in Alaska and it was -40 and living in Texas where it was 112 thats a small range? Your an idiot

        • verafish

          akboss wrote, “Your an idiot.” I love it when someone who doesn’t know proper grammar and spelling dares to call someone *else* an idiot.

          • akboss

            So that is all you have as a comeback? My just because I suffer from PTSD and TBI and sometime the fingers don’t go where I tell them too yet here you are ready and willing to jump down my throat. Are you happy now?

          • verafish

            Yes, that was my only point. Also, your attempt to manipulate my feelings because of your illness/injury won’t work and, not only that, it’s a shameful way to try to garner sympathy for yourself.

            YOU were ready and willing to jump down OP’s throat first. You don’t have an excuse to be mean. Everybody’s living with something. Are you happy now?

      • Corey Gray

        verafish…yes, dear, there were.
        Are you aware that stone age men in north america were hunting saber tooth cats and woolly mammoths where Montana, the Dakotas, and southern Canadian plains are now…at the same time the Pyramids were being built, and Greece was becoming a noticeable set of city-states?

        Look it up.

        We survived 400K years as modern man…this we know for fact, now.
        There have been multiple MAJOR ice ages in that time…most recent MAJOR one ended 30K years ago…bad enough to drop global population of humans to 25,000 (mitochondrial DNA testing demonstrated this)….when the initial population hadn’t topped 300K globally, ever, to that point.

        Stone age cave dwellers, who spent most of their time huddled in fear, not even having fire yet…we survived the worst one since the Yucatan event wiped out almost all larger life forms.

        Not just that…I guess you’re entirely ignorant, despite the fact I KNOW you’ve seen plenty of Greek and Roman art from the bronze and early iron age, in pictures, at least…paintings and sculptures done in, and depicting, what i now northern France, writings that confirm this..men in sandals and linen “nightgowns” sitting up, outdoors, all night, in winter, drinking wine together.

        Try that now…you’ll freeze to death in a couple hours, wearing jeans, winter socks, a nice flannel shirt and a windbreaker.

        Also…you can EASILY track what crops were grown where, shipped where, and sold to whom THROUGHOUT history, as the most commonly found historical documents are mercantile in nature. Hell, the oldest stone tablet writing we’ve been able to translate so far was a shipping manifest and debt/credit talley! That tells you quite a bit about climate, and climate shifts…undeniable information…wheat grows under the conditions it grows…change those conditions, it don’t grow there no more…so that area suddenly doesn’t ship wheat…if it suddenly starts IMPORTING wheat, you know it’s SIGNIFICANTLY changed (the climate)…looking at where they’re importing it from shows what direction the change was.

        Don’t even REALLY need shipping records that we have to prove that…every famine in history is well documented, as are famine-related revolutions. Easy enough to find documentation, as a result, of what was growing where, at the time…and what had TRADITIONALLY grown somewhere, but suddenly wouldn’t.

        Vera…we’ve survived the worst this planet has to offer via NATURE, many times over…with stone age or earlier technology.

        However…we have NOT survived an ocean of literally radioactive waste (that’s what radioactive waste is, if you didn’t realize…the WATER from nuclear power plants, which has become radioactive…and cannot safely be stored because radioactive water is “infectious” as hell…rapidly turns anything AROUND it radioactive, it’s so unstable!).
        We have NOT survived the most basic organisms in our biome being killed off chemically.
        We have NOT survived wiping out whole species of prey animals, or killing off huge numbers with our own waste byproducts.
        We have NOT survived poisoning our own land, to extract chemicals we need, using harsh and toxic chemicals to do so.

        Don’t you think, since those are UNDENIABLY events that man is linked to, not “maybe”, like global climate change, and not about something we’ve survived, and all models offered by the “pro” folks have been PROVEN wrong, both by history and by physics (melt ice, water DROPS)…and over the last 20 years, globally there have been five sites where human used buildings have been uncovered from coastal waters…under at least 15 feet of water, before hitting the silt TO dig…two nearish Greece, one off Japan, one off each coast of Mexico, all in native and contemporary (to the time) architecture, all contemporary to one another, as well…
        hmmm…global spot checks…yup…5 places, globally. Coastal…yup, all under about the same amount of water and silt…confirmation climate was warmer…historical proofs via art, writing, and trade showing it was quite a bit warmer…but…buildings where they were? Evidently the water was quite a bit LOWER!
        At this same time, Phoenician trading empire existed…globally. They even accurately mapped the coasts of the New World…you know what we’ve ALSO found? Evidence they accurately mapped Antarctica’s coastline—something WE couldn’t do until this last decade, with GPR technology. Know what else? they evidently knew of multiple lakes, river heads, river deltas, river forks, an even marked permanent trading settlements up to 50 miles inland…as in a lake CURRENTLY under 200 feet of ice, and a coastline covered by 20 miles of ice shelf currently…THEY mapped it accurately as land…which means land based ice was gone at LEAST 50 miles inland, and 200 feet depth…yet…there’s the proof, in those buildings, that the water was…LOWER!

        You REALLY think, in lights of what I’ve shown you via our own history, art, writing, and records-keeping, all things you’re already familiar with, and SHOULD know, that your worries are unfounded, regarding climate change…but we DO have some extremely pressing issues where that money SHOULD be being spent, if you actually want to survive as a species?

        • Corey Gray

          Beyond that, even in relatively modern history, we’ve survived them.
          You do know we’re still coming out of a mini ice age, right?

          History lesson…why’d the Plymouth Rock colony NEED to be rescued by natives? Sudden cold snap for multiple years that they hadn’t expected…crops wouldn’t grow. No blight, just weather ruined crops.

          Why’d Marie Antoinette say what she did that lost her her head?
          Late 1700’s, early 1800’s, whole globe was cooler…styles of dress in art, writing, shipping all show this. Maps at the time show slightly higher waters. Styles of architecture of the time gives evidence.
          Also a massive wheat famine.

          The peasants were unrestful due to a wheat shortage…Marie was noble/gentry. Doubtful she’d ever been allowed NEAR a kitchen…but she knew her own table often didn’t have bread…but ALWAYS had cake or pastries.

          Reasonable thinking, then, to believe that those cakes and pastries MUST use less flour, if any…after all, “if wheat’s so short even *I* don’t get bread with every meal, but I DO get this…this must not use as much”…perfectly sensible thinking…if you’ve never seen something baked in your life, just on your table.

          So “if there is no bread, let them eat cake” is perfectly sensible advice…under the conditions she believed existed.

          Understandably maddening to the people who knew how to bake.

          Hell, the Middle Ages were caused by the START of that “mini ice age”, which lasted from about 400 to1400 AD, started warming, triggering the Renaissance, then a sudden “bobble” (Venetian history shows the results of this most markedly, right around 1680) that only started to correct itself properly after the impacts it had that created the Dust Bowl period….ummm…duh, long term drought in a usually incredibly fertile area, drought and poor production of agricultural products for damned near a 35 year straight period? GLOBALLY?

          Nah, that can’t POSSIBLY be part of climate change, CAN it? Hmm….but such an event is always the peak of a TURNING point between a heating and cooling cycle…again, read your history, and check against art, writing, and shipping/trade…we SHOULD be on a warming trend, now!

          And it’s nothing we haven’t dealt with MULTIPLE times before, just fine.

        • verafish

          Do you seriously believe that someone is going to read and reply to a veritable sermon written by some stranger on the internet?? My gawd but you are conceited and take yourself farrrr too seriously. Hilarious.

          • Corey Gray

            Someone who actually understands you can’t be educated if you refuse to expose yourself to information would, indeed, read a long post, verafish…thank you so for demonstrating that that certainly doesn’t fit even your own self-image.

          • verafish

            You really do think very highly of yourself, don’t you? Pontificate all you like, Corey Gray, and I’ll continue to educate myself using *reliable* sources. Just be aware of your realm of influence. (This comment board isn’t part of it.)

            P.S. It may come as some surprise to you, dear, but “verafish” is not my real name. That means I couldn’t care less what some stranger on the internet thinks of me.

  • isaac orogun

    Good explanation. There is no correlation whatsoever between the current floods in Houston and global warming. It is indeed a natural disaster that has not been uncommon in the region from the rainfall data presented in this write up. Global warming flooding should have been the result of melting ice that could have caused sea level rise over a wider area of the earth.

    • cptspanky

      exactly

    • Corey Gray

      Slight problem with that concept. Ice takes up 10% more volume than water.

      Melt ice in a liquid, level of he liquid goes DOWN. Want proof, put a bunch of ice cubes in a glass, fill it to the very rim with water, walk away…in two hours, come back. Water’s now quite a bit lower in the glass.

      Global warming fanatics claim “land based ice” is the problem…further issues…historically, we know that it was quite a bit warmer, globally, during the early bronze Age…Greece and Egypt, and their contemporaries…

      But in the last few years, we’ve found FIVE archeological sites around the globe, dating to that basic time, that show signs of human use or habitation, found under a minimum of 15 feet of water before the silt that actually covered them…

      These have been off Japan, Atlantic AND Pacific sides of Mexico, and two in the Med, one very close to Greece, one Grecian style, but more easterly.

      If, as these digs, art, writing, and even shipping manifests contemporary to the times those buildings were in use PROVE it was warmer..evidence of human use shows those buildings weren’t covered…and they were all around the globe, which means ALL oceanic levels were lower, yes?

      At about this same time, the Phoenician trading empire existed…we have evidence via history of cartography, including partial maps and maps made from copying maps, themselves hand copied, notated as to when the map they were copied from was originally drawn that they had ACCURATE maps of Antarctic coastlines…something WE couldn’t do until the last 20 years allowed us to advance GPR technology that far…those maps showed rivers, river heads, rive deltas, lakes…up to 50 miles inland…with permanent trading posts and settlements marked up to 50 miles inland…

      Which means that that ice would have had to have been absent…right now, we’re talking a 20 mile ice shelf, on average, and 200 feet of ice on top of one of the lakes we KNOW they discovered, and we’ve confirmed…even if they were making up the settlements, they didn’t have the equipment or knowledge to do that mapping if the ice was there….so at least 200 feet of ice, up to 50 miles inland, was absent from the land (a liquid form in the oceans, in other words)…yet those digs, shipping manifests, market documents, art, writing…all show warmer climate and LOWER oceanic waters.

      What these folks seem to forget is…we’ve SEEN worse change…we know this from crop growth patterns, famines, art, writing, records of what was being marketed where, and from where it came…while we have 50 years of reasonably accurate spot checked data, and an additional 100 years of very spotty, imperfect data collected with far more primitive equipment…150 years of POOR studies based mostly on data they KNOW wasn’t properly checked, recorded, or correlated…vs 6000 years of written history, soil samples showing what grew where, and “generally” when, 6000 years of art, 6000 years of evidence of trade in SPECIFIC materials, and 8000 years worth of archaeologically gathered information…

      These things indicate FAR more than one would suspect, about global climactic conditions…if suddenly what is now Northern France shows they were importing much more wheat than before, and still going through a shortage…you know the wheat stopped growing where it traditionally did…blights are ALWAYS recorded…so lacking such a record, it is obvious that for this to happen, several seasons worth of crops have to grow unsatisfactorily…which is USUALLY caused by a consistent shift in climate, at least in that area.

      Why is this such a telling sign? They didn’t have “scientific farming”…they grew what daddy did, where grandpa did, because HIS grandpa started out growing that crop right there…if they suddenly, and for several years (long enough to cause major famine) can’t grow enough…then climate shifted. So crop growth patterns, just as much as what grew there naturally, indicate wha the climate was like, anywhere, at any given point…as long as there’s ANY record of the people there, there’s record of their trades and market trading with others…so there’s records of where which crops were grown in these areas…telling you climactic conditions.

      Human mode of dess, compared to geographic location, as shown in writing and art, ALSO proves this. Greeks wore sandals and linen shifts in northern France, and sat OUTDOORS well into the night, drinking, quite regularly…try that now…hell, try it with long pants, good socks, a tee, and a light windbreaker…more than they ever worse…you’ll be suffering hypothermia in about an hour. Duh…you’ll freeze now, you wouldn’t, then…and they wore far less…so it was QUITE a bit warmer, yes?

      • Corey Gray

        Frankly, I worry one hell of a lot more about situations we HAVEN’T faced and survived before than a climate change we KNOW we’ve survived several dozen times as damned CAVEMEN…if we could survive that, with stone age tech…we damned well CERTAINLY can handle it with modern knowledge and abilities.

        But we’ve NEVER, as a species, dealt with an ocean that is rapidly LITERALLY becoming “nuclear waste” (dunno if ya’ll know it, but that’s what nuclear waste is…irradiated water, which is HIGHLY “contagious”). We’ve never dealt with a situation in which artificial chemicals are killing off sea life, from the bottommost organisms on up. We’ve never dealt with a situation in which our own byproducts are trapping and killing our food supplies before we can get them to the plate.

        THOSE we’ve never faced before, so have ZERO evidence we even CAN do anything to fix what we’ve done, survivably…and that CAN’T be denied as having a direct human linkage, so we COULD at least TRY to do something, since this IS the actual issue we need to be paying attention to solving…nobody and nothing else can!

        Either that, or kick the space program in the ass, and as soon as we manage to get interstellar, declare this rock a junkyard, until it’s as inhospitable as Ceres.

        I’m more in favor of working it both ways, and using whichever method we succeed at first…

        • Saul Alba

          Took the words right out of my mouth!

          • Corey Gray

            Hell, Saul…solar sail craft from a small orbital station would open the asteroid belt to mining, the gas giants and their moons for multiple reasons, etc…

            With the right setup, could even move most mechanized manufacturing to orbit, lunar, or Mars surface, get a LOT of power for NOTHING (solar…more efficient in space or on the moon, as well as having 2 weeks solid of intense sunlight…on a single collection array…put another on 180 degrees from it, full time solar power, no batteries needed), Mars, slightly less efficient solar…but they get windstorms, too.

            So MANUFACTURING could be done in such circumstances…once we have a commercial volume capable earth-to-orbit system.

            Wait…isn’t that what Space-X program is all about? Hmmmmm…

            People don’t get it…if you can’t get the clean power to the factories and people…you gotta bring the people and factories to the cheap and clean power. If the industry is too “dirty” to be safely done “in our own house” (on earth), move it out!

            But that’s only one option, and even then, those types of colonies are dependent on their parent planet…we gotta get interstellar, to survive by that route (a route we eventually have to take, if we want to survive, anyhow…laws of survival.)

            Other option, which we ALSO need to be putting money and time into…in hopes it will stretch things long enough we CAN get interstellar, is cleaning the damned mess we’ve ALREADY made up as much as we reasonably can, and trying to reduce the ongoing “attack”.

      • Zombietroy

        The climate is always changing. ALWAYS. The issue today is we have people graduating from schools that have to justify their existence in order to put food on the table. And if there is one major thing I learned in college, it’s that you can make numbers say whatever you want by using statistics that YOU harvest. and ignore others.

        • Corey Gray

          EXACTLY my point…and as I pointed out, any statistician, and most anyone with a lick of sense, understands you can’t predict swings that are between a decade and a century long for the small ones, and up to 2000 years for longer ones, with MAJOR cooling or warming periods occurring about every 10-15K years, if all you have is 100 years of spotty data off very crude measurement equipment, followed by 50 years of increasingly reliable data…when your fucking statistical universe is literally hundreds of thousands of years, or more, in range.

          However…you can’t fight evidence provided by history…not possible. If there’s physical proof that the water was lower, yet climate was warmer…via human used structures NOW under water at a time when people survived areas currently MUCH too cold to survive as they dressed and acted, and cold weather crops had to be pushed farther north in response to famine? Then you have proof of what conditions were like, DESPITE no having accurate global surface water temperature data. What you DON’T have, and the ONLY thing you don’t have, is a SPECIFIC figure for how much warmer the globe was at that time…but you DO have a range, via knowing the tolerances of those crops, of people, and of shipping, and what was going on, being grown, or being shipped to/from at any given period.

          Takes me about 17 seconds to set up an equation that will tell you 3 = 4, but 2 + 2 = 3.799999999, statistically…obviously false statement on the face of it…absolutely true if the numbers are handled just right. And the ways it can be done…so long’s you don’t let anyone NOTICE those parts, then only other statisticians will catch you…if they BOTHER doing all the figures…but if you throw in enough variables they’re not familiar with…they gotta take the word of someone familiar with THAT science, and use THAT data or process as “true”.

          How many scientists involved do you think are competent in **enough** of the sciences needed, personally, to be capable of checking and confirming ANY study, without taking quite a bit of it entirely on faith in the words of people from other disciplines? When each one involves so many disciplines, each with it’s own set of “accepted postulates” already intact?

          Whereas demonstrable history and historical evidence openly DISPROVES the models predicted, indicating a severe issue in the whole hypothesis.

  • James Rapp

    For example, the average annual temperature for the globe between 1951 and 1980 was around 57.2 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius). In 2015, the hottest year on record, the temperature was about 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C) warmer than the 1951–1980 base period.

    During the PETM, the global mean temperature seems to have risen by as much as 5-8 °C (9-14 °F) to an average temperature as high as 23 °C (73 °F), in contrast to the global average temperature of today at just under 15 °C (60 °F).

    If you follow the link below and look at the graphs we have mostly lived in a hot climate except if you will note during a volcanic eruption when the temps then dropped dramatically.

    http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

  • Tim Vanya

    …because people don’t study history any more…I was stuck 15 hours either ’78 or’79 when Houston got 17 inches of rain and Pearland got 23 all in less than 24 hours….we seem to forget that Houston is considered “semi-tropical” and that the “Big Thicket” just to Houston’s east side is considered the only “rain-forest in the eastern half of the United States….

  • Doug Miller

    One important point that — unless I missed something — this article failed to note. There’s a problem with comparing water levels in downtown Houston during the 1935 flood with the 2017 flood. In response to
    the 1935 flood, two reservoirs and dams were built in west Harris County. Had it not been for the Adicks and Barker dams, the floodwaters in downtown Houston during Harvey would have been substantially higher.

    • akboss

      except they had to open the flood gates to relive pressure so your argument is full of “holes”.

  • calhou

    In fact if even a small hurricane were to blow up through Galveston Bay right into the port of Houston the storm surge would make all the bayous reverse course and the highest points in the city could be under 5 to 9 feet of water. Global warming has nothing to do with it.

  • Asbrown

    Many of these SAME PEOPLE were warning of the coming ice age 40 years ago with the same solution: give us power and authority to enforce austerity to.prevent the disaster! Always the same. Give us power!

  • cdl123

    Not to mention solar flares and their impact on our weather.

  • barndabas

    When man can control the currents of the ocean, the jet streams, the rotation of the Earth, the sun and the moon and all matter and energy in the ecologic system called planet earth all at the same time then man can change the weather. I know the ONE who does and He is a personal friend of mine.

    • TxChristopher

      Then your friend is a petty little azzhole who up and decides to hurt people for fun, much like a kid with a magnifying glass with nothing better to do than to make ants suffer to entertain himself. Doesn’t sound like much of a friend to me.

      • Ron Webb

        Hey, that is uncalled for. He wasn’t trying to insult you or anyone else.

        • TxChristopher

          I didn’t insult him or anyone else either. Get over yourself.

      • barndabas

        The problem is that people live on Barrier Reefs, Barrier Islands, in floodplains and on patches a dirt lower than see level and where the storms occur and have always occurred. I know it’s great to live by the beach but man in this game of Monopoly you’re going to get wiped out every once in awhile. If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

  • Brian De Paolo
  • Zombietroy

    go back and rewatch An Inconvenient Truth. See where they predicted things would be today.

  • David Klein

    Can any of you point to a natural source of carbon dioxide that can account for the amount it has risen since the beginning of industrialization? While you’re at it account for the huge net loss of ice at the poles.

  • David Klein

    Nobody can tell me of a natural source for the extra CO2 that has accumulated in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolution. That’s because there isn’t one. Scientists have looked and looked and can’t find any source except humans burning fossil fuels. Extra CO2 in the atmosphere helps keep more heat in the atmosphere which in turn triggers a whole series of feedback mechanisms many of which make the problem worse.
    If someone can disprove this feel free to reply.