Color Satellite Shows Texas Floodwaters Entering the Gulf

October 28th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Most of the rain that fell on southeast Texas (up to 20 inches) will end up flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, a process which has already started.

Here is yesterday’s color MODIS image of the turbid water along the coast, compared to twelve days before. Some of the water is sediment-laden (tan color), while in other areas the water is relatively sediment-free (darker than normal). Click for full-size.

NASA MODIS imagery of Texas floodwaters entering the Gulf of Mexico.

NASA MODIS imagery of Texas floodwaters entering the Gulf of Mexico.


38 Responses to “Color Satellite Shows Texas Floodwaters Entering the Gulf”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Curious George says:

    The Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas refers to a designated three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, during which Texas governor Rick Perry asked that Texans pray for “the healing of our land [Texas]” and for an end to the drought. Now we know how long it takes for our prayers to reach God.

    • AZ1971 says:

      For clarification, God does not adhere to man’s timeline but His own. In the greater sense of the drought, it was bound to end at some point in time and did. We are to be faithful regardless of our circumstances as God is blameless. We, on the other hand, are complete fk-ups.

      • JohnKl says:

        Hi AZ1971,

        To your point the article states:

        “Most of the rain that fell on southeast Texas (up to 20 inches) will end up flowing into the Gulf of Mexico, a process which has already started.”

        Since they’ve known about the supposed drought for a number of years why didn’t they dig more man-made reservoirs to collect all the rain water now spilling into the Gulf of Mexico? Why ask why?

        Have a great day!

        • Vincent says:

          That’s a good point, John. You’re obviously not always confused. (wink)

          Since Americans mostly seem to believe in God, and are mostly Christians, one wonders why they have not yet learned from the experiences of Joseph in Egypt, who predicted seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine, and advised the Pharaoh to store surplus grain.

          I recall that Winston Churchill once said, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else.”

          Could that be the explanation?

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Vincent,

            Thank you for the reply. Perhaps I’m not so confused as mathematically accurate as you yourself pointed out.

            You ask:

            “Since Americans mostly seem to believe in God, and are mostly Christians, one wonders why they have not yet learned from the experiences of Joseph in Egypt, who predicted seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine, and advised the Pharaoh to store surplus grain.”

            Hmmh! You make so many assumptions and my time proves limited. You seem to assume politicians actually wish to resolve these kinds of problems. In California the state dumped 1.6 million acre feet of water in the middle of a drought to supposedly save the Delta Smelt fish. In fact, as any even brain fogged Marxist knows crisis-antithesis-synthesis the secular left ( especially the California legislature ) consciously creates crisis all the time like inviting untold numbers of migrant children from central America to California to destroy it’s health and human services operations and create even more crisis supposedly requiring a government response. Dumping millions of acre feet of water to CREATE A DROUGHT is not at all out of the ordinary for today’s progressives. In addition to progressives another local pest proves to simply be a greedy businesses and who combined seek unlimited immigration throughout the US. Their psychotic indifference to public welfare manifests itself in many forms. Currently in California the reservoir system orignially designed for ~20 million people must supply 35-40 million inhabitants many of them illegal. The state government having one of the highest tax rates in the country has failed to enforce the laws and provide for the citizenry, but some politically connected individuals have done very well indeed.

            You can read more here:

            http://spectator.org/articles/40982/emptying-reservoirs-middle-drought

            The internet has much more information available on the topic.

            As to Christians the Padres and Church built Missions throughout California, dug wells and planted farms and provided an infrastructure the State has benefited from enormously. The current crop of secular politicians have done much harm here and in Texas.

            You further stated:

            “I recall that Winston Churchill once said, You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after theyve tried everything else.

            Could that be the explanation?”

            That is a great quote, I have run across it before and it would be very difficult to argue with it!

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Corrections:

            My statement should have read:

            -In fact, as any even brain fogged leftist knows the Marxist dialectic crisis-antithesis-synthesis the secular left ( especially the California legislature ) consciously creates crisis all the time like inviting untold numbers of migrant children from central America to California to destroy its health and human services operations and create even more crisis supposedly requiring a government response like even higher taxes and more regulation.-

            and:

            -In addition to progressives another local pest proves to simply be greedy businesses who combined with the left seek unlimited immigration throughout the US. Their psychotic indifference to public welfare manifests itself in many forms. Currently in California the reservoir system originally designed for ~20 million people must supply 35-40 million inhabitants many of them illegal.-

            Have a great day!

      • David Appell says:

        AZ1971: How is it you know “God’s” intentions?

        Carrier pidgeon?

        • Lewis says:

          David,

          Sacrilege is not an attractive trait. In fact it leads to destruction of civilization but, as many know, that is the purpose of the true believers in AGW and its offshoot, CAGW.

          Those believers, of which you profess to be one, would destroy civilization as we know it in order to achieve their beliefs.

          So how do you know the tenants of your religion: Are handed down from above or is the self-hatred of species innate?

          And, being curious, do you find my sacrilege of your religion acceptable?

        • lewis says:

          David,

          Sacrilege is not an attractive trait. Further, it leads to destruction of civilization, but as that seems to be the purpose of the true believers in AGW and its offshoot religion CAGW, then one can, perhaps, understand.

          One might ask where you receive your knowledge and beliefs. Are they handed down from above or is the self-hatred of species inherent in the believers in AGW innate?

          ?

    • JohnKl says:

      Hi Curious George,

      Our prayers reached Him a long time ago. Our patience and understanding is what often lacks.

      Have a great day!

  2. Trev says:

    How much carbon in that sediment will be removed from the carbon cycle? Just curious.

    • lewis says:

      Ah, the carbon cycle.

      Greenies want more trees, so they want recycling of paper. If you buried paper in landfills, instead of recycling it, carbon would be sequestered in the landfills. More trees would have to be grown to fulfill the needs of the paper mills, etc. (A great way to sequester carbon, although I have no idea if it would be noticeable.)

      But no. The religious aspects of the greenies beliefs will not allow them to consider that their actions work against their stated desires.

      • Slipstick says:

        If you buried paper in landfills a fair portion of the carbon would return to the atmosphere as methane.

        • mpainter says:

          A coal seam is an ancient land fill. Today’s land fills will provide fuel for the future. It’s a wonderful world, slapstick, enjoy it.

      • David Appell says:

        Planting or recycling some trees won’t affect the carbon cycle enough to make a difference.

        Not when we’re emitting about 35 billion tons a year of CO2 from burning fossil fuels…..

        • mpainter says:

          Fossil fuel. How would we feed our plants without it? Wonderful stuff, that fossil fuel. Feed an extra billion or two. Have a lump of coal, David. Kiss it, fondle it. Put it in your pocket to show your friends, if you have any.

        • lewis says:

          David,

          Is the miniscule bit of carbon offsets you pay for noticeable? Or is it just a feel good part of your religion?

          • fonzarelli says:

            Lewis, the carbon growth rate tracks with temperature. Just as temps have been in a hiatus, so also has the carbon growth rate. For all the factories that china and india have built, we have NOT seen an increase in the atmospheric carbon growth rate. David may as well flush his money down the toilet. It won’t make a damn bit of difference…

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Fonzarelli,

            You very well stated:

            “For all the factories that china and india have built, we have NOT seen an increase in the atmospheric carbon growth rate.”

            As you’ve stated many times the carbon growth rate changes FOLLOW temperature changes. Temperature changes track with albedo/solar absorption. One thing that doesn’t get brought up enough is the fact that CO2 measurements began in the late 19th century after 2 of the largest recorded geological eruptions in history both in Indonesia Mount Tabor (~1813-15 if I remember correctly) and Krakatau in the late 1880’s. Both are believed to have reduced global temperatures greatly. Mount Tabor has been claimed to have reduced global temps by 4-5 deg centigrade. The year of it erupted was called the year without Summer and it saw major reductions in global agricultural production and civil unrest. Krakatau may have significantly reduced temps as well. People at the time claimed the particulate ash from the explosion could still be detected in many parts of the world 4 years after the event. If global temps did decrease significantly that could have greatly impacted, perhaps reduced atmsopheric CO2 since colder water absorbs more CO2. Which may explain why levels have increased since then as temps warmed.

            Have a great day!

          • JohnKl says:

            Hi Fonzarelli,

            Please nor a correction to my previous post. Krakatau blew in 1883, not the late 1880’s.

            Have a great day!

  3. aaron says:

    Given the discovery that irrigation water is a major CO2 sink(carbonate dissolution increases the capacity for CO2 to disolve in water), could multi-decadal variation in monsoon-like activity have big impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

  4. geran says:

    The vast majority of surface runoff ends up in the oceans. The runoff carries tons of sediment annually.

    But, of course, that sediment does not cause any sea level rise.

    🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

  5. Doug~Cotton says:

    ROY – IT IS CRIMINAL that CORRECT CLIMATE SCIENCE will be REJECTED at these CLIMATE TALKS

    If the radiation from one molecule of carbon dioxide in every 2,500 air molecules could actually slow the rate of cooling of Earth’s surface, then the radiation from water vapour should slow the cooling at least a hundred fold, making rain forests about 50 degrees hotter than dry regions at similar latitudes and altitudes.

    The pseudo science that blames natural warming on carbon dioxide assumes that the Sun’s radiation firstly warms the Earth’s surface, and that radiation from these so-called “greenhouse gases” then slows the cooling. It would, but it would not make the surface hotter than the Sun’s radiation could make it anywhere on Earth.

    The problem climatologists have is that correct physics tells us that the Sun’s radiation is nowhere near strong enough to explain the average surface temperatures on Earth, let alone on Venus, where the solar radiation reaching its surface is only a tenth as much, and yet it is over 460C there.

    Correct physics tells us that the Sun’s radiation can, on average, only raise the temperature in colder regions well up in the troposphere.

    Correct physics tells us that gravity forms a temperature gradient in the troposphere of a planet and that is the real reason why the surface temperature is hotter than the middle of the troposphere.

    And that’s why all of what climatologists say about carbon dioxide is wrong.

  6. Vincent says:

    “JohnKl says:
    October 29, 2015 at 1:48 PM
    You can read more here:
    http://spectator.org/articles/40982/emptying-reservoirs-middle-drought

    That’s an interesting article, John. The mind boggles. However, America is the land of litigation, isn’t it? The legal industry is huge, costing Americans over $400 billion a year, taking everything into consideration. http://legaltransformationinstitute.com/blog/2014/2/22/make-that-400-billion-for-us

    If my maths is correct, that represents approximately $1250 for every man, woman and child in the country, every year.

    The problems of water storage in Australia are also a huge concern, as a result of our being a democracy with so many competing interests.

    There are always so many objections to any proposal for a new dam, which taken together will usually result in the approval not being granted, which will usually result in billions of dollars of flood damage at some point in the future, whenever the drought ends, as well as the additional expense for the construction of desalination plants as an alternative to new dam projects.

    However, desalination plants don’t necessarily mitigate flooding because the water produced is relatively expensive and not of sufficient quantity to allow existing dams to act as flood mitigation, by remaining largely empty at the beginning of a flood season.

    We know we are a country of ‘floods and droughts’, but we like to bury our heads in the sand, which is a great pity because most of Australia is arid land which suffers from a shortage of water most of the time.

    If water could be stored and redistributed from the parts of the country that frequently get excess water, to the parts that are dry, the greening of those arid lands could sequester the entire global emissions of man-made CO2.

    • lewis says:

      Vincent says: “If water could be stored and redistributed from the parts of the country that frequently get excess water, to the parts that are dry, the greening of those arid lands could sequester the entire global emissions of man-made CO2.”

      Let us take California, the land of greenies and CAGW true believers. Over the past 2 centuries, much water was diverted to agriculture, doing exactly as you said. But the radicals have recently decided that water needs to be sent into the ocean instead – to save the smelt. Much land which was recently green, is now brown and gray. Farmers giving up farming to – raise solar panels?

  7. rah says:

    Well Texas isn’t quite done with the precip yet.. They got more Friday and will be getting some more in the near future if the forecast is correct. That’s OK they need it. And if the guys at Weatherbell.com are correct in stating the El Nino winter pattern is setting in. The Lone Star state will be seeing more than average precip this winter with a band of 200 to 300 percent higher than normal snow fall running across the state.

    • mpainter says:

      Yep, looks like another wet winter. Texas climate: drought or flood, never in the groove. Take your choice, burn or drown.

  8. lewis says:

    Slipstick,

    The question is; when? Most landfills are slow to digest organic compounds and while it might return as CH3, many landfills have collection systems to either burn off or use the CH3. My point remains uncontested. While the alternative energy radicals seek ways to collect CO2 from smokestacks, the method I suggest, very workable, being against the religious mantra of the radicals, is not acceptable.

  9. mpainter says:

    I think you mean CH4.

Leave a Reply