New Study Says Climate Change Made Hurricane Harvey a Lot Worse

Spoiler alert: global warming made the destruction of Hurricane Harvey both worse and more likely. In a new paper by Mark Risser and Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley Labs, they first show us the rainfall trend for Houston over the past 70 years:

The upward trend is clear. I’ve added the dashed line showing Hurricane Harvey, which dropped 481 mm of rain over the greater Houston area. Next up, here’s the trend in the likely return period for the previous biggest storm (300 mm):

In 1950, a storm dropping 300 mm of rain on Houston was likely to occur once every 300 years. By 2016, such storms were expected every 30 years. These trends are partly due to climate change, which leads the authors to this conclusion:

We find that human-induced climate change likely increased the chances of the observed precipitation accumulations during Hurricane Harvey in the most affected areas of Houston by a factor of at least 3.5. Further, precipitation accumulations in these areas were likely increased by at least 18.8% (best estimate of 37.7%).
Climate change more than tripled the odds of a huge Harvey-like story hitting Houston, and increased the rainfall by about 38 percent. So can you say that climate change “caused” Harvey? Not quite. But you can say that it probably made it a lot more likely and a lot more damaging.

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate