Scientist Confirms: Harvey Caused A "1-In-1,000-Year Flood"

Scientists have confirmed what one renowned weather forecaster has suspected for days: Hurricane Harvey was a “1-in-1,000-year flood.”

That’s according to researchers at the University of Wisconsin’s Space Science and Engineering Center, who claim there is nothing in the historical record that rivals the devastation resulting from the flooding in southwest Texas, which has forced more than 30,000 Texans into temporary shelters.

“There is nothing in the historical record that rivals this, according to Shane Hubbard, the Wisconsin researcher who made and mapped this calculation. “In looking at many of these events [in the United States], I’ve never seen anything of this magnitude or size,” he said. “This is something that hasn’t happened in our modern era of observations.”

Of course, one reason for this might be that the modern urban environment is covered in concrete and asphalt, which makes it impossible for floodwater to absorb into the ground, exacerbating the disaster.

Hubbard’s calculations, which he shared with the Washington Post, only accentuate the massive scale of the flooding.

  • At least 20 inches of rain fell over an area (nearly 29,000 square miles) larger than 10 states, including West Virginia and Maryland (by a factor of more than two).
  • At least 30 inches of rain fell over an area (more than 11,000 square miles) equivalent to Maryland’s size.

To that, we’d like to add the nearly 52 inches of rain recorded by the National Weather Service in Cedar Bayou, Texas, which broke the continental U.S. record.

Making matters worse, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) has just updated its forecast for what it is now referring to as a "rapidly intensifying" Category 2 hurricane in the Eastern Atlantic Ocean. Some models see the storm making landfall in Florida, while others see it landing somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico, meaning that another powerful storm could ravage Texas just two weeks after Hurricane Harvey, leaving locals little time to recover.


Déjà view chumbawamba Fri, 09/01/2017 - 04:15 Permalink

Batchelor...NUMBER 41...

Rinse & repeat...'Taxplayers'...PRE-EXISTING coverage...great for GDP...

Can you imagine living in a property that has flooded 10 times? How about 20 times? It’s hard to fathom enduring that kind of situation, yet owners of 2,109 properties across the United States experience just that. Not only has each of these properties flooded more than 10 times, but the National Flood Insurance Program has paid to rebuild them after each flood. One home in Batchelor, Louisiana flooded 40 times and received a total of $428,379 in flood insurance payments. 

These properties—and more than 30,000 others that have flooded multiple times—illustrate the current problems of the National Flood Insurance Program.

In reply to by chumbawamba

SubjectivObject Big Brother Fri, 09/01/2017 - 08:04 Permalink

under the "cain't fix stupid" classification:"Of course, one reason for this might be that the modern urban environment is covered in concrete and asphalt, which makes it impossible for floodwater to absorb into the ground, exacerbating the disaster."word: clay expansive soilsjust below the ground cover root loam, the dense clay soil does not absorb water at any significant rate (experiment and see for yourself)while the clay will absorbe some water, and expand reeking havoc on roads and foundations, there is no significant absorption over any short periof of time[if even] gently set 4 ft of water over any flattish terrain, and watch where it runs off to ....further, [straightish] conctrete channels allow water to move as quickly as possible, so concrete has its place; little known to even Houston residents, due to general terrain flatness, the roads are water run-off channels, but drain section sizes act as a valving on flowthe [now monster] insurance problem here was using the known and frequently referenced 100 year flood plain and the insurability basis, rather thant the [apparently not very well known and referenced] 1000 year flood plain.  but that would be restrictive for [the development] business and associated property taxation; other knockon economic effect includes already indebted residents without insurance having to find the funds to recover .... think significant cash flow reductions for local discretionary products/services ...from which one may predict a significant shortfall for [the already deeeply indebted] City of Houston going forward and significant added minicipal debt consequences, going forward.cheers, jeers, and beers

In reply to by Big Brother

matermaker Anarchyteez Fri, 09/01/2017 - 00:37 Permalink

It's true that there is no historical comparison to this storm.  Though as the ABC 13 weatherman said, "we basically took a swamp, covered it with concrete and called it a city."    The more people there are and the more of them move en masse to costal areas like that, the worse the destruction will be.  I was a child in 1979 and it rained 45 inches in 48 hours.   BUT, there was a FRACTION of the developement and people.  Wetlands are excellent buffer zones.   The water has no place to go, now.  I will also point out that the original mater plan community of clear lake didn't flood, for the most part.  Neither did the JSC which is just feet from Clear Lake and several creeks.  That area was built with flooding in mind.  The only thing that can take out my childhood home, flood wise, is a 13 foot storm surge directly up Galveston Bay.  In which case, kiss the port of Houston and everything else goodbye.

In reply to by Anarchyteez

Slack Jack TeamDepends Fri, 09/01/2017 - 00:13 Permalink

A one in a thousand year flood that will be happening every 50, or so, years?

So, why is the global rise in temperatures so worrisome?

For one thing, as temperatures rise good farmland will become desert (e.g., dust-bowl conditions will probably return to the American Midwest).

Another major problem is sea-level rise.

Have a look at

The U.S. Geological Survey people claim that;

The Greenland ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 6.55 meters (21.5 feet),
the West Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 8.06 meters (26.4 feet),
the East Antarctica ice sheet melting will raise sea-level 64.8 meters (212.6 feet),
and all other ice melting will raise sea-level 0.91 meters (3 feet).

For a grand total of about 80 meters (263 feet).

So, what does an 80 meter (263 feet) rise in sea-level mean. Have a look at the following map of the world after an 80 meter rise. It means that over one billion people will have to be resettled to higher ground and that much of the most productive agricultural land will be under water. Fortunately, at current rates, the Greenland ice sheet will take over a thousand years to melt and the Antarctica ice sheet, much longer. However, the greater the temperature rise the faster the ice sheets will melt, bringing the problem much closer. Remember, the huge ice sheet that recently covered much of North America, almost completely melted in only 15,000 years (today, only the Greenland ice sheet, and some other small patches of it, remain). Since then (15,000 years ago), sea-levels have risen about 125 meters (410 feet), only 80 meters to go.

The ice sheets have been continuously melting for thousands of years. What is left of them today, is still melting, and will continue to melt. Human caused global warning will cause this remnant to melt significantly faster. This is a big, big, problem.

For HUGE detailed maps of the "World after the Melt" go to:

Global temperatures are increasing. And by quite a lot each year.

2016 is the hottest year on record for global temperatures.

This is 0.0380 degrees centigrade hotter than the previous record year which was 2015.

0.0380 is a large increase in just one year.

2015 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.1601 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2014.

0.1601 is an absolutely huge increase in just one year (at this rate temperatures would increase by 16 degrees in a century).

2014 was the hottest year (at that time) for global temperatures.

This was 0.0402 degrees hotter than the previous record year which was 2010.

The conspiracy to hide global warming data.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is given tax money to make global temperature records available to the public. However, certain people at NOAA continually sabotage this aspect of NOAA's mandate. For example, these people have (deliberately) sabotaged the web-page that delivers the temperature records.

Look for yourself:

Go to the page: scroll down to the The Global Anomalies and Index Data section and click the download button and see what happens. Well, you get the message:

"Not Found. The requested URL /monitoring-references/faq/anomalies-download was not found on this server."

I guess that the 2017 data must be truly horrible if they have to hide it away.

It turns out that this seems to be the case; NASA reports that:

July 2017 had the hottest average land temperatures on record.

The new July 2017 record was +1.20 degrees centigrade above the 20th century average (of the July data). The previous record average land temperature for July was just last year. It was +1.10 degrees above the 20th century average.

Did the media bother to tell you about this? No!

In reply to by TeamDepends

MisterMousePotato Lurk Skywatcher Fri, 09/01/2017 - 14:19 Permalink

A curious hobby of mine is looking at used electronics on our local Craigslist waiting for that big 'scroe'.Now and again, I see people list, and relist, over and over and over again (ad nauseum) the same mediocre crap for ten times (if not more) what it's worth.Slack Jack is probably that same guy who has been listing (and updating) his crappy RCA subwoofer, for instance, every single day for the past two and a half years.Maybe longer.I think we all agree that persistence is a virtue, but ... ?

In reply to by Lurk Skywatcher

Caloot Slack Jack Fri, 09/01/2017 - 00:44 Permalink

The level of bullshit here is amazing. Ever notice that no one lives in cold climates.   But millions of folks with an average iq of 85 live just fine in the sweltering heat of Africa.   Or that the populations rise in warm periods. Or that the acres of farmable land grow as the world warms. Or that the lowest level of living things occur during ice age, with the highest concentrations of periods of excessive warmth. Or that ice ages reduce the carbon needed for global photosynthesis, reducing plant life and available oxygen.  It just keeps going on and.   Fcking bullshit, by no nothing talking heads.

In reply to by Slack Jack

LotUnsold Slack Jack Fri, 09/01/2017 - 01:38 Permalink

Slack Jack, your 'facts' are bullshit.  Global temperature graphs are going downwards, and have been since 1998.  Besides, the Middle Ages warm period was still hotter than we are seeing today.  I have no idea where you get your figures from but they do not tally with the raw data and seem to have been plucked from thin air.As for melting ice caps, this is in the realm of the delusional.  Do you know what the average temperature is in Antartica?  It's around -50 deg C.  That means a rise of 50 degrees before the ice cap even begins to melt.  It's fantasy land to be worrying about that happening and only the credulous would fall for it.  You clearly have.

In reply to by Slack Jack

Anteater xyzcracker Thu, 08/31/2017 - 23:39 Permalink

I'm sure Noah is laughing in some other dimension. The Mississippihas flooded far larger extents. The last big flood tropical storm wasa few years ago and only a few inches less. There's a whole crew ofscientists (sic), about to make millions rewriting the storm codes formassive increase in construction site costs, but they won't spend agod-damn penny to outlaw stick-built sheet-rock in flood zones, soevery fucking time there's a hurricane, DHS is gonna tap our SS/MCfor another $50B grift fest handout to local and state governments.MAZEL TUV! WINNING!! NADA!!!

In reply to by xyzcracker

Yen Cross Thu, 08/31/2017 - 23:40 Permalink

  Give me a fucking break!  I've listened to some very smart Meteorologists over the last week.  General consensus is that abnormally cold weather stalled the front [Hurricane], as the jet stream dipped down, and trapped the system.  This also explains the warm tropical weather in the Pacific Southwest.