https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Pakistan_floods
Are we linking every weather event to climate change?
Can we tighten up our science a little?
Somewhere I read that the Pakistan issue was not related to climate change and more to do with where the people lived.
More people are living in flood zones, for example.
> In addition, southern Pakistan experienced back-to-back heat waves in May and June, which were record-setting and themselves made more likely by climate change.[13][14] These created a strong thermal low that brought heavier rains than usual.[12][13] The heatwaves also triggered glacial flooding in Gilgit-Baltistan.[14]
I can't believe your comment is up top. How is climate change in this instance not the main cause?
What will it take to purge this sort of ignorance from HN?
https://theconversation.com/pakistan-floods-what-role-did-cl...
Weather isn’t climate, this is true, but it’s going to be pretty difficult to find weather that isn’t affected but such a rapid change in the climate.
In other words, all weather is now weather like we’ve never seen before because we’ve drifted so far from the mean.
The parent is right, most increases in storm damage rates are because humans are building more stuff where storms are, changes due to climate change are negligible in comparison.
Edit: Removed some phrasing
Pakistan's population is a bit over 230 million now (or maybe even 240 million). It was around 45 million in 1960 (not including Bangladesh). It was around 23 million in 1900 (not including the rest of British India).
The numbers vary a bit depending on source but the overall trend is unmistakable.
This increase is not due to "Climate Change" but to increases in public health (cleaner water, better sewers/latrines, soap, plumbing=easier hand washing, cleaner food, vaccinations) and available food (many, many more calories + vitamins).
If the Pakistanis choose to spend that wealth increase on a population growth instead of increase in personal wealth, well, that is not our fault. Perhaps they made the right choice, perhaps not. It's up to them.
---
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.2326-4624.....
Edit: minor copy editing to tighten up the language.
Pakistan contributes less than 1% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but is one of the places most vulnerable to climate change.[15][16] A study by an international team of climate scientists says that global heating made the flooding up to 50% worse and future floods more likely.[17] However, some of the contributors to the severity of the flooding are local to the country. Deforestation in Pakistan has also been a factor worsening the floods"
So much larger than usual rainfall is the problem - they had record flooding - meaning bigger than ever recorded, right?
I don't understand why you are talking about public health like that had an impact in the amount of water that was covering more land than ever?
Why do people live where they do? Surely you understand that that is relevant?
Frankly, I think it could probably have cause a couple of the wars too. It seems a bit suspicious that on the one side of COVID the world was more or less peaceful and then on the other side we're seeing what seems to be an escalation [0] up to WWIII. Before COVID people were complaining that the US executive was too chummy with Russia. That is just one example, but there are a lot of suddenly tense areas and I think the economic stresses from the general lockdowns are serious contributors.
[0] I see the UK is now giving Ukraine cruise missiles - https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/12/russia-denies-ukrai....
Giving a country the weapons it needs to defend itself is not escalatory, whats escalatory is invading a country and trying eradicate its population. If Russia cares so much about escalation they should leave Ukraine.