I was on a twitter discussion (or I was reply guy to some people. My twitter is down under the tabs where it says "see offensive comments".) Just copying it here for when I get blocked by the AGW people, that thread will go poof.
about this paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375528628_The_Influence_of_Climate_Change_on_Flooding_and_Social_Inequalities_from_Remnants_of_Hurricane_Ida
Science!
"The general philosophy is to use estimates of the anthropogenic influence on an extreme weather event to drive another analysis or series of analyses focusing on the event’s impacts. Hence the attribution statement about human influence is a storyline type of statement"The first example they do this for is Harvey. I'm just going to say bullshit, because they don't understand the geography or history. They get to 32% of structures wouldn't have flooded without climate change, and this was an injustice.
The reservoirs were built in the 1940's to store water so that Buffalo Bayou wouldn't flood downtown. Since then the suburbs were built in and around the reservoirs and downstream of the dam. What used to be 150 square miles of rice fields and prairie, are now suburbs.
Just taking the area where I live. The upstream side of the reservoir (red) flooded because houses were built inside the area designed for the reservoir. The downstream side (blue) flooded because the COE opened the dams. Why is this important?
The paper says 1° increase from AGW added to the rainfall and increased flooding area 32%. Just showing that a huge percentage of flooded areas were flooded because of human intervention, building where houses shouldn't be and poor design would falsify that paper. Science!
Previous papers about Harvey said that flooding was caused because AGW made storms move slower in a north/south direction. All of them assume a priori AGW, ignoring the fact that Houston has seen large floods and 40" rains since it was first established.
The paper goes through the flooding impact of Ida in the NE. They don't show actual flood depths, they hindcast model then say gems like: "In the present scenario, over 20 thousand km2 of land area was estimated to be flooded with an average peak flood depth of nearly 1 m."
Really? An area 140^2 kilometers flooded to 1 m? NFW. There wasn't even that much rain.
Oh, it's got integrals integrating the societal impact. Muy science-y
"Socially vulnerable populations were found to be disproportionately more exposed to flood hazards regardless of the amount of climate change. Climate change further exacerbates this inequality for people exposed to deep floodwater."
I got nothin' for that.
I'd agree with it, it's pretty obvious. That's why I'd follow the advice of Bjorn Lomburg and tackle the problems of poverty before trying to "fix" climate change with government funded wind spinners.
