[QUOTE=kladner;466447]As an old family friend put it, "We've been stupid. We've covered former rice fields with concrete." Now, the runoff makes the bayous go crazy downstream.[/QUOTE]The ProPublica article [url=https://projects.propublica.org/graphics/harvey]Why Houston Isn't Ready for Harvey[/url] describes the difficulties created by rampant development, and the official attitude toward it:[quote]Some local officials flat-out disagree with the scientific evidence that shows development has worsened the effects of big storms. Mike Talbott, the former longtime head of the local flood control agency, told the Texas Tribune and ProPublica last year that large-scale public works projects — like drainage basins — are reversing all the effects of Houston’s recent growth. (His successor shares that view). “You need to find some better experts,” Talbott said. When asked for names, he would only say, “starting here, with me.”[/quote]

This reminds me of a quotation which is perhaps reflected in the [u]Nineteen Eighty-four[/u] Party slogan [b]Ignorance is Strength[/b]:

[quote]Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens[/quote]
-- [i]Die Jungfrau von Orleans[/i] by Friedrich Schiller (Act III, Scene 6)

(Against stupidity, the gods themselves contend in vain)

That is an excellent article, as one expects from Pro Publica. Thanks for posting it. Houston has a long way to go, to even acknowledge the extent of the problems.

[QUOTE=only_human;466348]Elsewhere there was a Twitter storm yesterday about scrubbing climate change language.
[URL="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/doe-denies-it-has-policy-remove-climate-change-agency-materials"]DOE denies it has policy to remove ‘climate change’ from agency materials[/URL]
Snopes is looking in to it: [URL="http://www.snopes.com/2017/08/25/doe-grants-climate-change/"]Did the Department of Energy ask a Scientist to Remove the Words ‘Climate Change’ from a Grant Proposal?[/URL][/QUOTE]
Meanwhile, while looking up stuff about 100- and 500-year storms, I ran into this page on the EPA's web site. I know, it isn't DOE, so maybe the censors haven't gotten around to this agency yet...
[url=https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heavy-precipitation]Climate Change Indicators: Heavy Precipitation[/url]

[QUOTE=Dr Sardonicus;466582]Meanwhile, while looking up stuff about 100- and 500-year storms, I ran into this page on the EPA's web site. I know, it isn't DOE, so maybe the censors haven't gotten around to this agency yet...
[url=https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-heavy-precipitation]Climate Change Indicators: Heavy Precipitation[/url][/QUOTE]Thanks for posting this.

There looks to be some interesting structure in the 9-year running average. I'm tempted to run a periodogram on the raw data to see what can be found. This may already have been done but I haven't yet found any more than the diagrams.

Houston flood control reservoirs over-topped
 

Interesting that this story is from the Tampa Bay paper, and the URL refers to Louisiana.
[URL]http://cars.tampabay.com/news/weather/hurricanes/wary-louisiana-prepares-for-inundation-by-harvey/2335493[/URL]

[QUOTE]The Addicks and Barker dams and reservoirs were both authorized by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1938 and completed in the 1940s, to prevent the flooding of downtown Houston and the Houston Ship Channel. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers owns and operates the reservoirs.

The Harris County Flood Control District noted the structures "have protected greater Houston area residents against loss of life and property over the last 70 years" and that there were no signs of structural issues with the dams. The "magic sponges" he sneers at are made up of grass like that in the attached image.
[/QUOTE]From a previous Pro Publica article linked in the original post, with the same "Pro Development" idiot flood control head featured.
[QUOTE][B]The claim that “these magic sponges out in the prairie would have absorbed all that water is absurd,”[/B] Talbott said.
He also said the flood control district has no plans to study climate change or its impacts on Harris County, the third-most-populous county in the United States.


Of the astonishing frequency of huge floods the city has been getting, he said,[B] “I don't think it's the new normal.”[/B] He also [B]criticized scientists and conservationists for being “anti-development.”[/B]
“They have an agenda ... their agenda to protect the environment overrides common sense,” he said.
[/QUOTE]He also says that it is only one percent of the population getting flooded, and that the 99% would not want to pay for more flood control.
The arrogance and ignorance of this political creature is extreme, but that's Houston for you. The Real Estate boys have run things there going waaaay back.

[QUOTE=kladner;466598]Interesting that this story is from the Tampa Bay paper, and the URL refers to Louisiana.
[URL]http://cars.tampabay.com/news/weather/hurricanes/wary-louisiana-prepares-for-inundation-by-harvey/2335493[/URL]

Hmm. Looks like an oopsadaisy. The URL links to a different article, not about Louisiana. So, what's the story about Louisiana? Let's see here...

The squib from the search engine gives the following (which isn't in the Tampa Bay Times story):
[quote]Southwest Louisiana balanced on a knife's edge early Tuesday as Tropical Storm Harvey threatened to inundate the region with potentially[/quote]
Using the squib, the Louisiana reference in the URL appears to refer to [url=http://miami.cbslocal.com/2017/08/29/louisiana-braces-for-harveys-wrath-12-years-after-katrina/]this AP story[/url].

More fun in Texas as a result of the flooding. Oh, sorry, this may be off-topic since the increase in extreme rain storms has nothing -- nothing at all -- to do with climate change...

[url=http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/BREAKING-Reports-of-explosion-at-flooded-Crosby-12163386.php]Explosions reported at flooded Crosby chemical plant[/url]

It is not clear to me why the plant didn't provide for neutralizing the chemicals if it became impossible to keep them refrigerated.

I can hardly wait for a sequel to the Great State of Texas' public policy change after a huge explosion at a West, Texas fertilizer plant:

[url=http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/politics/texas/article/State-blocks-release-of-chemical-facility-5551690.php]State blocks release of chemical facility information[/url]

Hey! They can't be seen as Business Unfriendly, just People Unfriendly.
Oh, yeah. The Tampa Bay link seems to be to a constantly updated story. It isn't what I was posting or quoting.

Houston, Wehave a problem.....
 

(Moved from Science News by OP)


Houston metro has a substantial Progressive population, in addition to large Poor and People of Color populations. Gerrymandering, informed by computer analysis, dilutes the force of these groups of voters. Last I knew there was a long, narrow district which ran from the East side of Houston, to Beaumont. This mixes potential minority (though Latinos won't be a minority for much longer) and progressive voters with East Texas rednecks, (though Houston has no shortage of those!) It makes it difficult to do anything sensible on a large scale there. :davieddy:
[URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston[/URL]
[QUOTE]The flatness of the local terrain, when combined with [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_sprawl"]urban sprawl[/URL], has made flooding a recurring problem for the city.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston#cite_note-48"][48][/URL] [B]Downtown stands about 50 feet (15 m) above sea level[/B],[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston#cite_note-49"][49][/URL] and [B]the highest point in far northwest Houston is about 125 feet (38 m) in elevation.[/B][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston#cite_note-50"][50][/URL][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston#cite_note-51"][51][/URL] The city once relied on groundwater for its needs, but[B] land [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidence"]subsidence[/URL] forced the city to turn to ground-level water sources[/B] such as [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Houston"]Lake Houston[/URL], [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Conroe"]Lake Conroe[/URL], and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Livingston"]Lake Livingston[/URL].[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston#cite_note-HouHTO-10"][10][/URL][URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston#cite_note-USGS_Subsidence_Fault_Creep-52"][52][/URL] The city owns surface water rights for 1.20 billion gallons of water a day in addition to 150 million gallons a day of groundwater.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston#cite_note-53"][53][/URL][/QUOTE]

[url=http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Hey-San-Francisco-get-ready-for-the-heat-12166706.php]San Francisco hits 106 degrees — shatters all-time record[/url] | SFGate

I live in the south bay, where we matched our all-time high record of 108, which was set roughly a decade ago. But over 100 in cool-ocean-water-on-3-sides SF? That's just nuts. There's so much dust and pollution in the air that the moon is a dull orange color, looks like it has terminal jaundice. Tomorrow gonna be just as much fun, except our place will only cool off a smidge overnight, so we'll start out warmer. (I live in a decently-shaded ground floor apt., so only 4-5 days a year we wish we had A/C ... today was one of those days.)

106 in SF is mind-boggling.