Hurricane Harvey

[real chili 83]

Three vacations in four months? How dare you? How absolutely selfish, deplorable and irredeemable of you. You sound like one of those intolerable 1 percenters that need to be taken to the woodshed

I'm taking Friday off

[GooooMarquette]

Glad to hear you're safe, houwarrior!

[drewm88]

Eng, I think your question needs to be divided into two parts..

1. Did Global Warming cause the Houston disaster?
2. Did Global warming increase the intensity of the storm?


I think the first answer is pretty obvious. No, it didn't cause the storm. We have always had hurricanes and tropical storms.

I think the second question is also relatively easy to assess. Some factors that affected Harvey include warm temps and ice melt in the Arctic causing changes in ocean currents and, therefore, wind patterns, more evaporation adding more moisture to the air, higher sea levels, and the warming of the oceans, themselves. Most climate scientists agree on these, but there is still uncertainty as to the degree that they are affecting these storms

Here are a couple good reads on the subject.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/28/16213268/harvey-climate-change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-hurricane-harvey_us_59a6f6a3e4b00795c2a35c15

Haven't read these specific articles, but there is strong evidence for climate change causing more intense rain and a higher storm surge.

[GGGG]

Watch CNBC tomorrow ... they have been touring these plants live on TV for the last two days.  They are all dry and ready to start up again ... as soon as their employees can make it back to work.

And it is typical of you to assume that companies lie and deceive.  I expect nothing less from you.

Oops...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/30/texas-town-under-emergency-evacuation-as-flooded-chemical-plant-nears-explosion/?utm_term=.b7c26b603f53

"2 blasts hit storm-crippled Texas chemical plant and company warns of growing risks"

[rocket surgeon]

I guess its time for a resident of Houston to lend perspective.

We were not in the path of the Hurricane Harvey eye, like Hurricanes IKE and ALICIA....but we were on the "dirty" side of its tail and it dumped epic amounts of rain on the city.

My subdivision had 58 inches of rain, and average throughout Houston was 35 plus inches. Biggest I have seen in almost 40 years here.

Recall for those of you that have been here...Houston is on hill less coastal plain. Over decades, the US Army corps has done an amazing job with bayous (think very large man made river ditches) and huge reservoirs . The roads and freeways are also sunken, serving as a backup water escape system. (this is why you see so many pics of flooded roads...its intentional).

In this storm every reservoir and bayou broke all records...yes its qualified as a 500 year flood. I am next to the Addicks Reservoir which peaked at a record 108 ft deep before the Corp opened flood gates early Monday...because the whole dam might have broken....flooding all of Houston for months(think Katrina and multiply it)

None of us left our homes, unless ordered to evacuate and  yet all of us felt the very real fear of water beyond human control. My home and the homes of my kids are fine....none of can drive anywhere for quite awhile though and all business and travel is suspended.

The toll will take many weeks to tally. Houston is uniquely well designed to handle tons of rain...its not our first rodeo. Think of what would occur if you had 58 inches of rain over 72 hours. That we have had minimal loss of life and home flooding in only hundreds of thousands of homes is miraculous and a testament to our advanced  systems.

This was worse than any hurricane or tropical storm here before, and the sheer amounts of water have me shopping for an ark. Houston, however,  is an extremely resilient, charitable city....you wont even hear much about this within a month or so...and thats the way we like it.

Let me know if this helped or if still you have questions

always good to hear the "half-full"- positive, up-lifting views from those without a spin.  glad to hear you're safe houston  you guys are warriors!

  on another note-jj watt used his influence to raise a schmit-ton of money for houston-good on him.  my biggest concerns when i donate to less fortunate situations-the organizations taking MORE than a "fair" share to "administrate" the money followed by the incessant and unsolicited pestering for more.  have you ever fed a stray cat?  i prefer to give my money straight to the purpose, eliminating the middle people when at all possible.  some of these organizations take 5% or MORE.  now that is what i call gouging.  to date, jj watt's fund raising has gone past $10 million.  that's $500k!! sorry, but that's just too much. 

unfortunately, there are always scum bags trying to capitalize on human suffering-read a story on fake dhs agents going to homes telling people they must evacuate, then ransack the homes-brutal!!

[MU82]

Oops...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/08/30/texas-town-under-emergency-evacuation-as-flooded-chemical-plant-nears-explosion/?utm_term=.b7c26b603f53

"2 blasts hit storm-crippled Texas chemical plant and company warns of growing risks"

1. Smuggles comes up with some ridiculous B.S. that is easily disproven.

2. A fellow Scooper spends 2 minutes to find report that disproves whatever Smuggles said; posts link.

3. Smuggles moves on to the next erroneous report, half-truth or inane opinion. No acknowledgement about his previous ridiculous B.S. No, "Sorry everybody, I was wrong about this one." Just crickets.

4. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[StillAWarrior]

1. Smuggles comes up with some ridiculous B.S. that is easily disproven.

2. A fellow Scooper spends 2 minutes to find report that disproves whatever Smuggles said; posts link.

2a.  Smuggles provides 6-8 increasingly ridiculous posts doubling down on his initial BS by citing completely irrelevant articles that supposedly support his initial claim, but are, at best, only marginally related to the original point, only to be smacked down by everyone else in the thread.

3. Smuggles moves on to the next erroneous report, half-truth or inane opinion. No acknowledgement about his previous ridiculous B.S. No, "Sorry everybody, I was wrong about this one." Just crickets.

4. Lather, rinse, repeat.

You missed my favorite step.

[GGGG]

always good to hear the "half-full"- positive, up-lifting views from those without a spin.  glad to hear you're safe houston  you guys are warriors!

  on another note-jj watt used his influence to raise a schmit-ton of money for houston-good on him.  my biggest concerns when i donate to less fortunate situations-the organizations taking MORE than a "fair" share to "administrate" the money followed by the incessant and unsolicited pestering for more.  have you ever fed a stray cat?  i prefer to give my money straight to the purpose, eliminating the middle people when at all possible.  some of these organizations take 5% or MORE.  now that is what i call gouging.  to date, jj watt's fund raising has gone past $10 million.  that's $500k!! sorry, but that's just too much. 

unfortunately, there are always scum bags trying to capitalize on human suffering-read a story on fake dhs agents going to homes telling people they must evacuate, then ransack the homes-brutal!!

Couple thoughts.

1. I think it's great that JJ Watt is lending his celebrity to raise money for Houston, BUT I have concerns about him doing it to his Foundation through a YouCaring site.  I'm not saying it's going to be misused, but other organizations are much better at allocating resources where they are needed.

2.  Charity Watch rates charities as efficient when they spend 75% of their donations on program expenses.  Simply put, it costs money to administer a charity and to raise money.  When you hear organizations say "100% of what you donate is going to Harvey relief," that is completely accurate.  However they are using other unrestricted donations to cover their administrative costs. 

The American Red Cross for instance spends 91% of its gifts on its programming.  That is very high - a very good charity.  But while 100% of your Harvey donations go to Harvey support, they are taking other unrestricted donations and applying it to their administrative and fundraising costs.

[mu03eng]

Couple thoughts.

1. I think it's great that JJ Watt is lending his celebrity to raise money for Houston, BUT I have concerns about him doing it to his Foundation through a YouCaring site.  I'm not saying it's going to be misused, but other organizations are much better at allocating resources where they are needed.

2.  Charity Watch rates charities as efficient when they spend 75% of their donations on program expenses.  Simply put, it costs money to administer a charity and to raise money.  When you hear organizations say "100% of what you donate is going to Harvey relief," that is completely accurate.  However they are using other unrestricted donations to cover their administrative costs. 

The American Red Cross for instance spends 91% of its gifts on its programming.  That is very high - a very good charity.  But while 100% of your Harvey donations go to Harvey support, they are taking other unrestricted donations and applying it to their administrative and fundraising costs.

Charity is a remarkable business and something that needs to get close scrutiny before jumping in. I've seen a few people that run charities for a living that seem to live quite well.

I'm sure JJ Watt's heart is in the right place but it's not like he is doing any of the administration and is actually introducing inefficiencies in matching donations to services being delivered or relief for people in need. I'd love to see Watt transfer all funds to several established charities as opposed to distributing funds/services via his own organization, but I doubt that happens.

[MU82]

You missed my favorite step.

Nicely stated.

Management apologizes for any inconvenience.

[mu03eng]

Eng, I think your question needs to be divided into two parts..

1. Did Global Warming cause the Houston disaster?
2. Did Global warming increase the intensity of the storm?


I think the first answer is pretty obvious. No, it didn't cause the storm. We have always had hurricanes and tropical storms.

I think the second question is also relatively easy to assess. Some factors that affected Harvey include warm temps and ice melt in the Arctic causing changes in ocean currents and, therefore, wind patterns, more evaporation adding more moisture to the air, higher sea levels, and the warming of the oceans, themselves. Most climate scientists agree on these, but there is still uncertainty as to the degree that they are affecting these storms

Here are a couple good reads on the subject.

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/28/16213268/harvey-climate-change

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/climate-change-hurricane-harvey_us_59a6f6a3e4b00795c2a35c15

Is there a non-zero chance that climate change impacted the intensity of the storm? Yes.

However, the fundamental mechanics of meteorology were not subverted in this case, the factors that combined to make this storm what it was (jet stream remaining south of the Canadian border at time of landfall, high pressure system stalling in Denver, storm occurring at the end of August when the gulf is at the warmest, minimal rainfall in the last month, etc) were all knowable. So pointing at this single event and saying "see, climate change" creates a permission mechanism for people to be skeptical.

Climate change is a probabilistic issue, which general society is bad at understanding and media specifically is horrible at explaining in context. Trying to turn a probabilistic concept into single instance examples is scientifically dubious and from an educational/conversation standpoint just silly.

[warriorchick]

Charity is a remarkable business and something that needs to get close scrutiny before jumping in. I've seen a few people that run charities for a living that seem to live quite well.

Can you elaborate? Personally,  I don't think there is anything wrong with someone being paid a competitive wage for their work if the charity is receiving the equivalent value or better in exchange.

[GGGG]

Is there a non-zero chance that climate change impacted the intensity of the storm? Yes.

However, the fundamental mechanics of meteorology were not subverted in this case, the factors that combined to make this storm what it was (jet stream remaining south of the Canadian border at time of landfall, high pressure system stalling in Denver, storm occurring at the end of August when the gulf is at the warmest, minimal rainfall in the last month, etc) were all knowable. So pointing at this single event and saying "see, climate change" creates a permission mechanism for people to be skeptical.

Climate change is a probabilistic issue, which general society is bad at understanding and media specifically is horrible at explaining in context. Trying to turn a probabilistic concept into single instance examples is scientifically dubious and from an educational/conversation standpoint just silly.

Yes.  This is well-stated.

I especially appreciate the "permission mechanism" phrase. 

[mu03eng]

Can you elaborate? Personally,  I don't think there is anything wrong with someone being paid a competitive wage for their work if the charity is receiving the equivalent value or better in exchange.

That's the trick, how do you determine what a competitive wage is given that every dollar you give in wage is a dollar not spent on direct outcome of the said charity. I just know it's not a good look to see someone running a charity as their only source of income driving up to a meeting in a $50,000 car.

[mu03eng]

Solid explanation of what a 100 year, 500 year, 1000 year flood is and how it is misunderstood and misused.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-time-to-ditch-the-concept-of-100-year-floods/

[tower912]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/five-public-health-crises-facing-houston-after-harvey/ar-AAr1tSR

Contaminated water a problem for some time to come. 

[GGGG]

That's the trick, how do you determine what a competitive wage is given that every dollar you give in wage is a dollar not spent on direct outcome of the said charity. I just know it's not a good look to see someone running a charity as their only source of income driving up to a meeting in a $50,000 car.

And right there you are hitting on one of the more difficult aspects of not-for-profit organizations that the IRS has to deal with.  "Excess benefit transactions..."

[warriorchick]

That's the trick, how do you determine what a competitive wage is given that every dollar you give in wage is a dollar not spent on direct outcome of the said charity. I just know it's not a good look to see someone running a charity as their only source of income driving up to a meeting in a $50,000 car.

I would say it depends on the type and size of the charity.

Marquette University is a charitable organization, and I bet Mike Lovell has a $50,000 car.

[StillAWarrior]

Nicely stated.

Management apologizes for any inconvenience.

No problem.

Upon further reflection, however, I realized even I left out my favorite step:

2b.  Upon realizing that he has been soundly beaten like a rented mule, Smuggles concedes defeat by incredulously asking, "are you still posting about this?"

[drewm88]

always good to hear the "half-full"- positive, up-lifting views from those without a spin.  glad to hear you're safe houston  you guys are warriors!

  on another note-jj watt used his influence to raise a schmit-ton of money for houston-good on him.  my biggest concerns when i donate to less fortunate situations-the organizations taking MORE than a "fair" share to "administrate" the money followed by the incessant and unsolicited pestering for more.  have you ever fed a stray cat?  i prefer to give my money straight to the purpose, eliminating the middle people when at all possible.  some of these organizations take 5% or MORE.  now that is what i call gouging.  to date, jj watt's fund raising has gone past $10 million.  that's $500k!! sorry, but that's just too much. 

unfortunately, there are always scum bags trying to capitalize on human suffering-read a story on fake dhs agents going to homes telling people they must evacuate, then ransack the homes-brutal!!

To add to what Sultan said, you're going to have a hard time finding a charity that spends 95% or more on program expenses. I would guess that just about the only ones you'll find are very small ones--no need for office space, a staff of one or two people that have enough assets/other income that they take no salary or benefits. Even then, do you need to pay a lawyer to assist you getting non-profit status? An accountant to help keep your finances in order?

Charity Watch or Charity Navigator are great resources for learning more about specific charities and finding high-quality ones.

[MU82]

No problem.

Upon further reflection, however, I realized even I left out my favorite step:

2b.  Upon realizing that he has been soundly beaten like a rented mule, Smuggles concedes defeat by incredulously asking, "are you still posting about this?"

Oh and what the heck ...

Apple stock hits ANOTHER all-time high this morning!

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

That's the trick, how do you determine what a competitive wage is given that every dollar you give in wage is a dollar not spent on direct outcome of the said charity. I just know it's not a good look to see someone running a charity as their only source of income driving up to a meeting in a $50,000 car.

Not necessarily disagreeing, but this sums up a lot of the world's problems right here. We expect those who do work that greatly benefits society (teachers, charity managers, cops, firefighters, etc) to be paid peanuts but are fine with athletes, movie stars, hedge fund managers, and social media coordinators being paid north of six figures. We don't get quality people in many important positions because the pay just doesn't justify it.

[brewcity77]

Solid explanation of what a 100 year, 500 year, 1000 year flood is and how it is misunderstood and misused.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/its-time-to-ditch-the-concept-of-100-year-floods/

Thank you for that. Much appreciated link that does a better job of explaining how we've had two 100-year floods and a 500-year flood in the past 12 years. Honestly, it's almost surprising we don't have more of them as I'm sure those aren't the only risk areas.

[HouWarrior]

Right now....in Houston...there is little esoteric talk over charity money...we have few businesses open to spend anything at...in any case. lol

Instead ....typical of we Houstonians....they get out their boats, gather up all the extra dry clothes they have, grab batteries, flashlights, and bottled water and folks simply head out looking for others who need a hand.

Watch your TV news feeds to see hundreds gathered on the edges of the flooded areas standing ready to help and assist however they can. I was out in the streets and rescue center until midnight. No one asks their neighbor to pitch in...or needs to ....its just understood that at times like these you get out and pitch in. Charity is doing right now, and love thy neighbor...pay it forward, etc are almost automatic actions between us when we see what we are going through.

50 plus inches of rain is a people unifier...no pretenses, no attitudes ,no arguing ....just all us asking where do you want me and what would like me to do.

Prayers and outside money are fine ...we dont need masses of folks coming here to help...we will and are taking care of each other. Words cant express the charity and love you give and get during these pull together times. I am very proud of our towns people power today....the most powerful charity force we could hope for.

[jesmu84]

Not necessarily disagreeing, but this sums up a lot of the world's problems right here. We expect those who do work that greatly benefits society (teachers, charity managers, cops, firefighters, etc) to be paid peanuts but are fine with athletes, movie stars, hedge fund managers, and social media coordinators being paid north of six figures. We don't get quality people in many important positions because the pay just doesn't justify it.

This.