Hello Elizabeth, so you are taking your utterly failed prediction and somehow convert it to a successful one by just claiming it was a hit? That seems like wishful thinking to me. Furthermore you seem to misunderstand some of the mainstream science in this, like some media outlets are doing as well. Which I'm happy to explain here:
The first thing you need to realize is that when you talk about "effects of global warming" you cannot talk about one event, no matter how impact-full it might seem. Global warming is a model about noticeable changes over decades, even centuries.
It's then good to know that Atlantic hurricanes, their frequency or intensity have not been rising and as intensity is not expected to do so as noticeable trend before the end of this century. For more information see: Global Warming and Hurricanes
from GFDL, a NOAA Research Laboratory, specialist in hurricanes and global warming. Also the water and air temperatures from NOAA indicate they were near relatively normal for the atmosphere and sea surface being only slightly above normal in the Gulf. It's not unusual enough to explain anything about this hurricane with current climate science.
Now we established that the formation or strength of this hurricane and the ones following are not considered to be directly related to global warming theory, we still need to look at the amount of water and flooding.
The main cause with Harvey has been the particular trajectory and especially the stationary behavior: it kept for a long time in one place, thereby offloading its water (which was not that much more than normal) into one region. Why did the hurricane do that? The weather system in place which pushed Harvey into place ("MJO phase 2" – a major cool trough) does not seem to be part of any global warming related pattern or statistic apart from some speculation. One blog digging further into this: Global Warming and Hurricane Harvey
Having said all that, we do need to realize that these kind of events will hit hard in any modern economy where many development projects have used flood plains to build housing and did not invest sufficiently in water protection against predictable
disasters and tide rises known to happen during the warmer interglacial (period between ice ages). The Netherlands learned this in 1953
, where a statistical combination of events put part of the region under water (2500 died in total). After that mega investments like the Delta Works were done to protect the coast and plains against events which were known to occur lets say once in a century following non-CO2 models. Now the risk left is one in 10.000 years with a human life valued at €2.2 million.
Places in the world where flooding is a real danger are often simply not valuing human life very high, refusing to invest in protection against normal
weather and tide related events, those happening once in 50-100 years and when it does happen, they cry for God and blame the Devil's hellish warming. In my view it's too much of a religious mindset which needs some cooling
, pardon the puns.