Pakistan Floods Have Killed At Least 1,100 and Submerged About a Third of the Country (nytimes.com) 94
After a spring of deadly heat waves, summer floods have killed more than 1,100 people in Pakistan. Since June, rains have washed away buildings, submerged homes and destroyed roads. One-third of the country is underwater. From a report: Scientists can't yet say exactly how climate change has shaped the disaster, but they know that global warming is sharply increasing the likelihood of extreme rain in South Asia, home to a quarter of humanity. There is little doubt that it made this year's monsoon season more destructive. Today, I'll talk about some of the climate factors in play and why Pakistan, a country that has done very little to cause global warming but is now among the most vulnerable to its effects, has been hit so hard. The South Asian summer monsoon is part of a regional weather pattern. Basically, winds tend to blow from the southwest from June through September. That onshore breeze brings wet weather. In normal times, that's generally a good thing. Farmers all over the region count on monsoon rains for their crops.
But these are no longer normal times. Global warming means that water evaporates much faster out at sea. And, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. So, monsoons risk bringing way too much rain. Researchers will need time to conduct attribution studies to understand exactly what happened this summer, but Steven Clemens, a professor of earth, environmental and planetary sciences at Brown University, said the months of deluge in Pakistan are "super consistent with what we expect in the future" as the planet heats up. This monsoon season, rainfall in Pakistan has been nearly three times the national average of the past 30 years, the country's disaster agency said. In Sindh Province, which borders the Arabian Sea to the south, rainfall is nearly five times the average.
But these are no longer normal times. Global warming means that water evaporates much faster out at sea. And, a warmer atmosphere can hold more moisture. So, monsoons risk bringing way too much rain. Researchers will need time to conduct attribution studies to understand exactly what happened this summer, but Steven Clemens, a professor of earth, environmental and planetary sciences at Brown University, said the months of deluge in Pakistan are "super consistent with what we expect in the future" as the planet heats up. This monsoon season, rainfall in Pakistan has been nearly three times the national average of the past 30 years, the country's disaster agency said. In Sindh Province, which borders the Arabian Sea to the south, rainfall is nearly five times the average.
Re: (Score:1)
That is quite provocatively/trollishly said, but having been there I can say that with such big floods there will be HUGE amounts of trash eventually flushed to the ocean.
Re: (Score:1)
consider.
global warming and flooding.
i will bet that no one saw that coming.
oh.
how awkward.
i appear to be incorrect.
next year.
be able to channel the water.
to places that having water would be useful.
or
how is that autocracy working out for you
Re:Why must we blame every weather event on global (Score:5, Informative)
The difference is mostly that it happens more often, is more intense and happens in places it didn't happen before ... but other than that, you're absolutely right.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is mostly that it happens more often, is more intense and happens in places it didn't happen before ... but other than that, you're absolutely right.
How dare you take this opportunity to promote your ag--[notices user's handle...moves on]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not fair of you hold him to such a high standard. He saw a story about Pakistan flooding once before, and so this can't possibly be new or different. Just like how all natives walk in single file.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought only Stormtroopers did that?
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, Tusken Raiders [scientificamerican.com] move in a single file to hide their numbers.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoopsie! Don't blame me for mixing up Star Wars facts, I'm a Trekky!
Re:Why must we blame every weather event on global (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Nature has a solution for this problem.
The problem we have with that solution is that it's quite likely that we are the problem the solution will solve.
Re: (Score:1)
Nature has a solution for this problem.
SARS, Ebola, Covid-19....
Re: (Score:2)
Not fast or effective enough, not by a longshot. Population still increased during the worst pandemic times, there just is no eradicating us with any less damaging means.
I guess nature will have to accept quite a bit of collateral damage to get rid of us.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a global nuclear war might do it. But other than that, we have stalled addressing this problem a few decades too long. Billions dead are pretty much assured at this time.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. My take is that there still is not even a general consent on the problem at this very late stage in the window of opportunity to do something effective about ir essentially means we will be getting one of the worse or worst scenarios. That means a few 1000 people dead will not even make the news anymore and whether we can keep civilization going is highly doubtful. It will mean billions on the run and billions dead. Ultimately, it could mean no humans left.
Re: (Score:1)
How much of this is due to human beings and how much to other forces?
This is a non question, it doesn't matter if humans are 100% or 0%. The only thing that matter is the livability of the planet, until we're ready to leave it. Maximizing habitability and diversity(or at least maintaining) of life on earth while continuing to advance technologically is the only reasonable way forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Except you over simplify, as often happens in this.
Fun little exercise, next time there is a report saying this is the worst, never happened before, or is historic... check when the last time was it happened. When that high was reached last, when the last flood or tornado or drought was that was equivalent. More often than not, as the OP observes, they are rarely new or unprecedented.
There are reports of hunger stones being found in dry river beds in Europe, with markings (basically notes) from hundreds of
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, dry years happened before. What worries me is that they are no longer the rare exception that drives people to carving stones.
Re: (Score:2)
Once again, you oversimplify.
It's easy to assume dry years happen because of people gas guzzling SUVs, ignoring how we have not only more people on the planet than ever before, all of whom require a good bit of water to live, but that our usage of water is utterly insane at times. Think of places like Los Angelis, which if not for massive infrastructure, it would die quickly if not for the water they have to pipe in from far away. Even now there is talk of maybe trying to run a line from the Mississippi. Gr
Re: (Score:3)
That's why you monitor trends, and not simply specific events. It's the overall direction that counts. Any region is going to have one-off events. But we're talking about regions of this planet having what were once in a century events pretty much annually now. At some point you have to look at the data and see the inevitable, and not try to cherry pick unique events over the last thousand years and shrug and go "You see, it happened a few centuries ago, so all is normal." Normal isn't defined in statistics
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, there has always been things like volcano eruptions that affect the climate. Occasionally bad enough to cause extinctions. Doesn't change that lately we're also affecting the climate with CO2 which lasts longer then the megatons of water that the Tonga eruption injected into the stratosphere, as an example, which is currently cooling the southern hemisphere. That water will be gone within a couple of years, along with any sulfur whereas CO2 takes closer to a 1000 years
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is mostly that it happens more often, is more intense and happens in places it didn't happen before
We don't have enough data to make that determination.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you think we missed a third of Pakistan getting flooded
Yeah. Take a look at Chinese history. They had periodic floods that killed millions. As a result, they did a great job of hydrological engineering. And they have a pretty good written history so we know about it. In places where there aren't great records, people got flooded and they died. And we know very little about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between 'normal' and 'unprecedented' which your snark is attempting to mask
When they talk of floods, the "once in a ___ year" is a way of describing the likelihood, which you should read up on: https://www.usgs.gov/special-t... [usgs.gov]
There is even a nice table there noting the likelihood each year, going up to 500-year floods... which is in the ballpark of this and what you describe.
So no, just because Pakistan had a similar flood 1000 years ago, or even 100 doesn't make it normal, but it doe
Re: (Score:2)
There is a difference between 'normal' and 'unprecedented' which your snark is attempting to mask
Every half million years or so, Hawaii is apparently hit by wave that's half a kilometer tall caused by silt building up on an undersea slope until it can't sustain its own weight and subsides. So, there is a difference between normal waves and unprecedented waves. That does not mean that, if quarter-kilometer waves start hitting Hawaii all of a sudden, we can pretend that it's not a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about pretending it's not a problem? A 500-year flood is a problem... though it is less likely to have adequate mitigations and preparations around it compared to a 10-year flood.
Re: (Score:2)
What really needs to be evaluated is if what's supposed to be a 500 year event is becoming more common. Most indications do seem like these things are becoming more common.
Of course, this is true of floods in general. The historical 100-year flood level in many areas is meaningless today due to human activity, even completely ignoring global warming. This is for the simple reason that humans build. A lot. There are buildings, parking lots, roads, etc. everywhere. One of the things pretty much all of these h
Re: (Score:2)
What is so great about a humungous dam (3 Gorges)
Chinese history didn't start with the Glorious Communist Revolution. Try looking back a bit further (4000 years). That part of the world floods from time to time. And if Pakistan (and Afghanistan) hadn't dissolved into tribal conflict and held on to their cultural memory, they'd probably recognize this as a continuation of natural variation.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, you think we missed a third of Pakistan getting flooded because we didn't have the internet or devices to detect floods?
Yes.
We have the Internet and tons of long-range comm/sensor technology and thousands of satellites orbiting the planet, but if a plane takes off from, say, Malaysia, and nose-dives into, say, the Indian Ocean, the debris may break up and disappear forever. All the king's IoT and all the king's transponders couldn't put Humpty together again.
It is an absolute certainty that regions which seem very large in the human mind, have frequently been scoured and destroyed by Nature in the same casual way a human bei
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And it's not even new.. like this list from more than a decade ago [dailysignal.com]
Re: (Score:1)
You keep mentioning weather, a local/regional phenomenon, when talking about climate, a continental/global phenomenon.
Maybe take the time to understand the difference.
Also, we have been recording weather and reporting on it for over 200 years now. Arrhenius noted the potential for global warming over one hundred years ago.
Yes, weather-related disasters have happened throughout history but a major complicating factor today is, (and maybe you kissed this tiny little detail), that there billions more people than there used to be. Billions more in harms way.
But of course, people like the citizens of Pakistan, I daresay, you don't think are as worthy of living as you are? Hmm...?
In southeast asia? rains? lots of people? Yep, true for quite some time, which makes this statement "but they know that global warming is sharply increasing the likelihood of extreme rain in South Asia" sound like somone who has never read anything about the area. They've had monsoons in southeast asia for centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, billions of people living, often in places they didn't before.
Ex: Hurricanes have likely run into the east coast of the land that is now the United States for longer than humans have been on it, our records aren't that old by comparison... and today we have a large number of people not just living there, but right up along the water, all of who are going to suffer more damage and injury than those further inland, or far from oceans.
Every time there is a storm down there, alarmists point to the cost in
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really getting sick and tired of every weather event or natural disaster that happens being used to promote the global wraming agenda. This shit has been happening since the Earth was formed. Weather is not a constant and we have always had monsoons and floods - AND DROUGHTS! The difference now is that they are much easier to measure, track, and document - and it's much easier to spread the information around the world and weaponize and monetize it.
Seriously?
Maybe you didn't get the memo, but devastating droughts, floods, heat waves and wildfires have been occurring X times more frequently over the last 20 years globally than over the last 500. Very unlikely this is just random chance or freak incidents considering we can actually measure the much higher than average temperatures in the atmosphere and the oceans.
The fact that CO2 traps heat, and that heat traps more moisture, is something that can be easily demonstrated in lab conditions. It's not roc
Re: (Score:3)
Overall, I agree with your position but...
The fact that our civilization has been digging shitloads of carbohydrates from underground and pumping it into the atmosphere is, I think, obvious?
... have we really been pumping mined treacle (treacle mining [wikipedia.org]) into the atmosphere?
Re: (Score:2)
:D :D :D
Of course I meant to say hydrocarbons XD
I've been listening to a lot of fitness and nutrition related podcasts lately.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference now is that they are much easier to measure, track, and document - and it's much easier to spread the information around the world and weaponize and monetize it.
No the difference is that we measured and studied them and found they are happening more often correlated to global climate change.
Also can we all agree on fuck whoever modded you insightful? It's not 2005 anymore, global warming denial is just not cool. If you got mod points jump in the other thread and mod up some COVID anti-vaxxer, at least that's a modern thing to display your stupidity about.
Re: (Score:2)
Then I suggest you go to sleep, because what's happening is exactly what the models have suggested; significant changes in precipitation patterns that are going to alter the nature of even annual events. This is physics, not magic. Warmer air has the properties of holding more moisture.
Re: (Score:2)
You're 180 degrees off course, dude. The severe weather, itself, literally is the global warming agenda.
Most weathermen who tell you what happened and why, are opposing the agenda, not promoting it. Sure, there are some people who say "good, we're glad people in Pakistan are getting fucked too" which would count as promoting (or at least cheering) global warming, but the
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you are getting "sick and tired" or your own ignorance here. If you insist reality is something else than what it actually is, you will get that effect...
So this is where the water went (Score:2)
With all the droughts everywhere, we were wondering where all the water went. Apparently it went to Pakistan. We just can't get good things by fucking up the climate.
Re: (Score:1)
Let the rest of the rich mid east goat fuckers pay for it
Re: (Score:2)
OK now which country should be compensating them for their grief -- China, because emissions, or the U.S., because "per capita"?
Both.
Re: (Score:2)
OK now which country should be compensating them for their grief -- China, because emissions, or the U.S., because "per capita"?
Both.
It's a bit simplistic, but in principle yes, they do have a tort against all emitters - however, not based on current emissions, but on the sum of historic emissions. I suggest Kim Stanley Robinson's The Ministry for the Future [wikipedia.org] which, unfortunately, looks more and more like an optimistic view.
Re: (Score:2)
So how do we go after the Soviet Union for all the emissions they had done?
Re: (Score:2)
So how do we go after the Soviet Union for all the emissions they had done?
We go after their successor states, of course. (Un-)fortunately, international law does not operate the same way as English civil law. But, at least in my opinion, the same general moral principles apply - and that means that those states that have most profited from burning fossil fuels need to do the most to fix or at least mitigate the mess.
Re: (Score:2)
OK...I follow you. So who is responsible for all the emissions in the Ukraine or Kazakhstan? Figuring it was Moscow who controlled the industry and those current nations were just vassel states.
Lack of planning (Score:1)
Since its formation 75 years ago, Pakistan has focused its energy on military and madrassas and neglected all other institutions. Its only science Nobel laureate was a pariah in the country he loved, for being Ahmedi (who call themselves muslims but "real muslims" hate them). So despite having friendly relations with the west till 9/11, its institutional development was poor. Since 9/11, it has only worsened (it was richer than India till 2001 but is now much poorer than India). Pakistan former PM promised
waiting for explanations (Score:1)
Such as
-- This is Allah's will in punishment for letting women go to school
-- This is Jesus' punishment for not following the One [or Three] True God
-- what about $ANYTHING
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, you can't use up all the arguments in one single posting, how the hell are we supposed to fill the page here?
You're so selfish...
Re: waiting for explanations (Score:2)
Easy. Just say OP is a biggot who misrepresents x because y. Hey fuck you X-ians....
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot to blame Biden or Trump for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling?
Re: Insightful (Score:2)
Basically stupid and trolling... Climate change increased the frequency and intensity... we know that.
What is less areas us why or how.... so not sure if Of is making fun of how Science doesn't know anything or saying it knows nothing. Either way fuck them
Re: (Score:2)
Basically stupid and trolling... Climate change increased the frequency and intensity... we know that.
Without a mechanism of action, we don't know that at all.
This is like so many of the social sciences where statistical correlations are announced in news reports as if they were solidly proven unquestionable cause-effect relationships. Which is why millions of Americans are suffering under what has turned out to be lifelong debt from college. Their anger is understandable. They were told "college degree = greater success/income". So they did what the Experts and the Hard Data said to do, but the benefits di
Re: (Score:2)
Basically stupid and trolling... Climate change increased the frequency and intensity... we know that.
Without a mechanism of action, we don't know that at all.
And fail. You seem to have forgotten that much Science works on experiments and observations. All you need to rule out for a cause-effect relationship is other major influences. You do not need the details of how it works.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you really that stupid, or are you just trolling?
He was insulting your religion. I LOL'd.
Re: (Score:2)
We know the massively increased probability is due to global warming. Yes, I get that this is a statement too complicated for most people to comprehend.
“Scientists” or “ climate expert (Score:1)
Shouldn’t they be more worried about what caused it then trying to blame it on global warming? Is that really how the scientific process is supposed to work? No.
You start with evidence then you build a hypothesis then you test if the hypothesis is correct. Global warming is New Science”s sacred cow. I.e. it’s not science, it’s politics.
Re: (Score:2)
Scientists can’t yet say exactly how climate change has shaped the disaster
You may have confused journalists and scientists.
horrible event really (Score:1)
A third of a country getting flooded is a super mega serious matter, millions of people (tens of millions probably in a country of over 200million) are displaced, their infrastructure gone, their houses gone farm fields and animals gone, equipment destroyed, I cannot even fathom the desperation. There will be massive shifts in population because of this clearly, the economy will have to somehow absorb tens of millions of homeless and hungry people, this is not something that can be planned.
Also during the
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Yet, this is just the small, actually tiny, beginning, just the first few comparatively harmless disasters of a centuries-long series that will get worse and worse and relatively fast so.
Global Warming solves itself (Score:1)
Re:Global Warming solves itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Except that's not how any of this works. But I give you props. Of all the braindead stupid excuses to not give a shit about global warming I've not actually heard this one. It takes some real skill to come up with new stupid things to say. *tips hat*.
Re:Global Warming solves itself (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, those droughts happening around the world mean more vegetation.
Only Rich countries (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They modeled if Bangladesh stops using fossil fuels and slows down development to only use renewables ; in 70 years , half the country will still be under water due to sea level rise.
Then they modeled if Bangladesh goes full on development burning all the fossil fuels they want, in 70 years only 10% of the country would be under water.
Why? Because with this model of developmen
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. Unless you critically need changes to go much, much slower in order to survive. Which we do.
A third of the country submerged? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't believe everything you read, especially if said by a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not like a massive tidal wave comes in and floods the land with 10 feet of water.
This is heavy rain. Plenty of time to pack your things and move to higher ground. It's not likely to be 10 feet of water everywhere. Submerged, might just mean 1 foot of water. That's plenty of damage to land, crops, and infrastructure, but it may not translate into immediate deaths.
Ultimately, regardless of what the cause is, 'water management' needs to be a priority in Pakistan. Directing excessive water into planned
Re: (Score:2)
The two Mississippi River basin floods of the last decade flooded an area maybe the size of Texas (eyeballing the flood maps -- all I can find are regional totals) for weeks and only 12 people died. The losses to agriculture, property (structures), and river commerce were tremendous, though apparently recoverable for the US. After the first week it's mostly farmers watching their crops and livestock expire in a foot of water that extends miles in e
Re: (Score:2)
Global farming (Score:4, Informative)
First of all, this is a regular occurrence, just not a frequent one. Next, most likely the severity of these flood is probably a consequence of upcountry development, whether farming or urbanization, which increases runoff. And, all that is a consequence of burgeoning population.
Re: (Score:2)
Next, most likely the severity of these flood is probably a consequence of upcountry development, [emphasis mine]
Most likely? Probably? If only there was something like an article about these floods that could be linked to and get more information from.
Oh, the linked fucking article says:
This monsoon season, rainfall in Pakistan has been nearly three times the national average of the past 30 years, the country’s
So put your speculative bullshit away and fuck off with your fossil fuel industry talking point distractions.
If you want to make the case.... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to make the case that the Pakistani floods are due to a global warming you have to argue very specifically. It could be done, but I haven't seen it done so far.
The case might go something like this. First, show that the area where the winds pick up moisture from the sea has been warmer than in the past. Therefore more moisture has been picked up (you need to quantify this).
Contrast this with the situation in 2010 (another big monsoon year) and show that in 2010 there was proportionally lower temps and lower moisture takeup.
Then, account for the fact that the Indian monsoon is only a little heavier than usual, whereas the Pakistan one is exceptional. But, but. There are some areas of India with deluges also. So that has to be explained specifically.
You then have to show that the various patterns are the consequences of some local conditions that figure in the pattern which has led to the rise in global mean temps.
The default assumption, the case that has to be refuted, is that monsoons vary, that every so often as in 2010 or 2022 there will be a really heavy one due to unusual combinations of weather events. To see the kind of thing that is needed, look here, where there is an excellent explanation of the kind of coincidence of various weather events that led to the 2010 floods:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.... [nasa.gov]
Read it for the sort of thing we need to get to an explanation of what has happened.
The cry of 'climate change' or 'global warming' without more work on it and a proper level of detail and specificity on the proximate causes is completely unscientific. Get down to the specific causes of the particular events. Then show that these are part of and due to a series of events which are reflected in the 50 year rise of 1C in global mean temps.
Right now all one reads in the mainstream press, and unfortunately in forums such as this, is a sort of prolonged wail about climate, doom, blame. It may relieve feelings, but its not a contribution to understanding. In fact its a positive hindrance.
They had an even bigger disaster last weekend. (Score:2)