Pakistan Floods Likely Made Worse By Warming–BBC

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

h/t Paul Kolk

Matt McGrath blames the Pakistan floods on climate change (even though the scientists are not quite so sure!):

Global warming is likely to have played a role in the devastating floods that hit Pakistan, say scientists.

Researchers from the World Weather Attribution group say climate change may have increased the intensity of rainfall.

However there were many uncertainties in the results, so the team were unable to quantify the scale of the impact.

The scientists believe there’s roughly a 1% chance of such an event happening in any coming year. ..

But extreme rainfall events are hard to assess. Pakistan is located on the edge of the monsoon region where the rainfall pattern is extremely variable from year to year.

Further complications include the impact of large-scale weather events such as La Niña, which also played a role in the last major floods in Pakistan in 2010.

During the 60-day period of heaviest rainfall this summer scientists recorded an increase of about 75% over the Indus river basin, while the heaviest five-day period over the provinces of Sindh and Balochistan recorded a rise in rainfall of around 50%.

The researchers then used climate models to determine how likely these events would be in a world without warming.

Some of the models indicated that the increases in rainfall intensity could all be down to human-caused climate change – however there were considerable uncertainties in the results.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62915648

Perhaps McGrath and the “scientists” should have looked at the actual data, rather than playing with their computer models. According to the Pakistan Meteorological Department, most of the excess rain in August arrived on 18th/19th and 25th/26th. In fact 41% of the month’s rainfall fell on these four days:

http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/home.htm

The cause of this heavy rain was simple – two tropical storms, which had crossed from the Bay of Bengal – BOB06 and BOB 07. (In the Indian Ocean they are categorised as a “Depression” and “Deep Depression”. In Atlantic storm terminology, these would be named as a Tropical Depression and a Tropical Storm respectively).

http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/home.htm

Both storms followed identical routes west from Bengal, tracking over Rajahstan, before hitting the province of Sindh head on, the region worst affected by flooding:

Unusually, these storms did not dissipate after landfall, so were able to wreak havoc for days afterwards. Pakistan, needless to say, is not immune to tropical cyclones. Last year Cyclone Tauktae hit the country, but that was in May, rather than during the monsoon.

But for two storms to hit in the space of a week, at the same location, and during the wettest month of the year is an extremely rare combination of meteorological events.

Pakistan was already experiencing a wetter than normal monsoon, courtesy of La Nina, but those two storms pushed the rainfall into record territory, the wettest August since 1961.

There is, of course, no evidence that tropical cyclones are getting more frequent or intense in the Indian Ocean, so consequently there is also no evidence that last month’s rainfall had anything to do with climate change.

What is significant, though, is the chart of annual rainfall in Pakistan, published in the State of the Pakistan Climate 2021:

Pakistan annual rainfall

http://www.pmd.gov.pk/cdpc/home.htm

Annual rainfall was clearly much less during the 1960s and 70s, the direct result of global cooling. Those years of drought were a disaster for Pakistan, and the country welcomes the increase in rainfall since, just as they do across the border in India.

It is also significant that the 7-year moving average has barely changed since the 1980s, fluctuating up and down, but with no long term trend. If global warming was really bringing more extreme rainfall, we should expect to see evidence of this in the annual figures.

You will hear none of this from Matt McGrath, or the so-called scientists who write these fraudulent climate attribution studies, such as Friederike Otto:

image

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-62915648

So let’s recall what Roger Pielke Jr had to say about climate attribution:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/image-60.png
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/image-63.png

Or as Obama’s Climate Scientist, Steve Koonin put it:

“Practitioners argue that event attribution studies are the best climate science can do in terms of connecting weather to changes in climate. But as a physical scientist, I’m appalled that such studies are given credence, much less media coverage. A hallmark of science is that conclusions get tested against observations. But that’s virtually impossible for weather attribution studies. Its like a spiritual adviser who claims he influence helped you win the lottery — after you’ve already won it.

4.9 17 votes
Article Rating
52 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fretslider
September 17, 2022 6:25 am

Pakistan has had mountains of aid and done little with it. It’s on the edge in so many ways. The BBC will not let a weather event pass by without blaming humans, western humans, for it.

How much does this rubbish cost? £13.25/month or £159/year

“The researchers then used climate models” Quelle surprise, the BBC has a very high opinion of climate models; as it tells children…

Scientists created two climate models using data on carbon dioxide level increases:

due to natural sources only
due to both human activity and natural sources

The second model better matched the observed temperature changes. This adds to the evidence that the observed warming of the Earth is because of human activities changing the composition of the atmosphere.

What is the evidence for climate change? – OCR 21C

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zp32k2p/revision/3

They teach children studying for their exams that climate model output is “evidence”.

I really resent having to pay for the BBC especially in the knowledge that it is highly partisan on many issues – if only it were just climate science, but it isn’t.

For any BBC report on climate just do an Orwell – reverse the meaning. For example, a dry summer with two particularly hot days translates in my front garden into exceptional productivity.

The front garden is south facing. I have a vine along a long fence and a Fig tree. We’ve had masses of grapes and fantastic figs. Not knowing what to do with all the figs we made jam etc. The tomatoes, pumpkins, everything has been bountiful.

According to the BBC I live in a barren inhospitable landscape brought down by… two hot days and a thunderstorm. And the models confirm it.

Last edited 16 days ago by fretslider
Bryan A
Reply to  fretslider
September 17, 2022 5:01 pm

Pakistani flooding made worse by Climate Change Models

Redge
September 17, 2022 6:51 am

Global warming is likely to have played a role in the devastating floods that hit Pakistan, say scientists.

Many years ago now, the BBC defended its use of “ocean acidification” based on anything going from alkali to less alkali is acidifying.

McGraph will simply defend the BBC on the basis “likely” could mean anything from very, very likely to very, very unlikely.

The BBC are lying as usual.

DHR
Reply to  Redge
September 17, 2022 7:11 am

The Merriam-Webster dictionary, as well as several others, define “acidifying” as “to make or become acid.” Evidently, the BBC uses a very different dictionary unique to the business of TV news. They also use a different dictionary for words such as “catastrophe.”

Brad-DXT
Reply to  DHR
September 17, 2022 9:33 am

The leftists change the meaning of words to support their narrative.
They don’t want a dictionary that is printed and provides a standard definition that can’t be changed by online manipulation.
When Orwell published their playbook, 1984, Winston had to go through a time consuming methodology to change archives which today can be accomplished in seconds.

Eamon Butler
Reply to  Brad-DXT
September 18, 2022 4:46 pm

Yes. Most notably, ”Unprecedented” now means, ”it hasn’t happened since the last time.”

Captain climate
September 17, 2022 7:04 am

Weird that they always only go back to 1960 or 1979 and not the actual record.

Dennis
Reply to  Captain climate
September 17, 2022 7:14 am

Creative accounting.

Waza
Reply to  Captain climate
September 17, 2022 7:20 pm

CO2 doesn’t cause floods or droughts.
It supposedly causes Global Warming.
The Global Warming then supposedly causes more floods or droughts.
Thus alarmists must match Pakistani floods with all past Global Warming events. Back to 1850 would be good for a start.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Captain climate
September 18, 2022 4:31 am

Not weird, but calculated. Calculated to distort the true picture of the weather where it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today, but alarmists don’t want to mention that. If they did, then they couldn’t claim that current warming is unprecendented. If current warming isn’t unprecedented, then that means that CO2 is a minor player in the Earth’s atmosphere and alarmists don’t want anyone thinking that way. They want everyone scared of CO2, so they can fix it for us, for a nominal fee.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 19, 2022 3:59 pm

Tom do you have a graph that shows it was “ just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century?”

Bill Toland
September 17, 2022 7:08 am

“Our evidence suggests that climate change played an important role in the event, although our analysis doesn’t allow us to quantify how big the role was”.
If they don’t know how big the role was, how do they know it was an important role?

Dennis
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 17, 2022 7:15 am

Maybe they read the notes written by the late Maurice Strong said to be the climate based hoax architect?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bill Toland
September 18, 2022 4:40 am

“how do they know it was an important role?”

They don’t know. They are guessing, and favoring their bias with their guesses.

This is the state of alarmist climate science: A bunch of guessing after over 40 years of trying to find evidence of CO2’s influence, or lack thereof, in the Earth’s atmosphere.

And Western politicians are turning their societies upside down based on these guesses. How stupid are they? Answer: Dangerously stupid.

Vuk
September 17, 2022 7:48 am

C III R will carry on championing green issues
The statement comes after he had a telephone conversation with Emmanuel Macron on Wednesday, during which the French president “signalled his full willingness” to continue their work together – “starting with the protection of the climate and the planet”.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Vuk
September 18, 2022 3:06 am

damn! I see he also met with trulya dope as well
double damn!
hope Truss can hold her own against him

Last edited 15 days ago by ozspeaksup
David Kamakaris
September 17, 2022 8:20 am

“Matt McGrath blames the Pakistan floods on climate change.”

Sure, Matt. And the gorgeous weather we’re having today in Virginia was also caused by climate change.

Richard Page
September 17, 2022 8:36 am

I would like to credit my sending imaginary boxes of anti-lion powder to Iceland as the likely cause of there being no lions in Iceland. Thank you.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2022 9:31 am

+11
Can’t stop laughing!

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2022 10:15 am

Now that I’ve stopped laughing, did you read the label as it may have been a
multi-purpose powder that also works on penguins, elephants, …?

Richard Page
Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 17, 2022 12:22 pm

Yeah, about that. Where, exactly, should I look for instructions or contents list on an imaginary box, any ideas?

I know the first thing someone will say is – ‘use your imagination!’

H.R.
Reply to  Richard Page
September 17, 2022 2:22 pm

Well, I used some of the imaginary anti-lion powder around the perimeter of our lot and it didn’t work. A mountain lion traipsed through the back yard about 4 weeks ago.

I imagine I’ll get a refund, but I’m not holding out any hope.

guidoLaMoto
Reply to  H.R.
September 17, 2022 11:15 pm

You probably forgot to mix the powder with a can of dehydrated water–Instructions on the can — “Just add water to the contents and stir.”

saveenergy
Reply to  guidoLaMoto
September 18, 2022 12:51 am

The correct way of re-hydrating ‘dehydrated water’
is to light a match or cause a spark, there will be a bang & you will find water on all cool surfaces.

Nb: dont look into a mirror for at least 6mths after your plastic surgery !!!

Bryan A
Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 17, 2022 6:00 pm

There is an unintended consequence though as it also exterminates Ant-Lions

Mason
September 17, 2022 8:47 am

McGrath the hack is at it again. I usually steer clear of anything with his byline. Suffers from severe TDS as well.

saveenergy
Reply to  Mason
September 18, 2022 1:05 am

TDS
Thermal Diffuse Scattering
Temperature Derivative Spectroscopy
Testosterone Deficiency Syndrome
Terminal Deceleration Syndrome … (hopefully soon in McGrath’s case !! )

Cam_S
September 17, 2022 9:05 am

Models? Not just any models. They used IPCC RCP8.5. Here’s a link to the study. 36 pages.

  • – – – – – – – – –

Climate change likely increased extreme monsoon rainfall, flooding highly vulnerable communities in Pakistan
From mid-June 2022, large areas of Pakistan experienced record-breaking monsoonal rainfall, falling in several pulses, until late August. By the end of August large parts of the
country were submerged. The Indus river, that runs the length of the country, burst its banks across thousands of square kilometres, while the intense rainfall also led to urban flash
floods, landslides and Glacial Lake Outburst Floods.
https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientific-report-Pakistan-floods.pdf

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Cam_S
September 18, 2022 8:19 am

RCP8.5!

Believe it or not even the BBC itself has said that that scenario is “exceedingly unlikely”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-51281986

Climate scientist Zeke Hausfather said “we’ve been misusing the worst climate change scenario”

Peta of Newark
September 17, 2022 9:43 am

The weasel word ‘likely’ is the absolute give-away – they are talking out of their backsides:
And They Know It.
Sewer rats have more honesty, higher standards and better morals

Looking the graphix, If 300mm of rain over the course 12 months fell on, imagine a carpet 2 metres thick/deep, can you see that ‘Making a flood
Whereas if 300mm of rain descended upon your super lovely super duper slate-bed pool-table – how would you feel?

Same difference, you know what I mean.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  Peta of Newark
September 18, 2022 8:43 am

Weasel words!

The Guardian headline 16th Sept 22 ‘Climate crisis made floods in Pakistan 50% worse,say scientists’

In the body of the article you find –

“Climate change could have increased the most intense rainfall over a short period in the worst affected areas by about 50%”

“The scientists were not able to quantify exactly how much more the likely the flooding was made by the climate crisis, because of the high degree of natural variability in the monsoon in the region”

“However, they said that there was a 1% chance of such heavy rainfall happening each year”

But most readers will probably only remember the headline and not the body of the article.

Old Man Winter
September 17, 2022 9:58 am

Pakistan is about as large as France & the UK combined & is mostly both
hot & cold arid desert & arid steppe. If it weren’t for water from the Indus
& its tributaries as well as the monsoon rains, it would be much drier &
have little available water which they’ve been using to irrigate crops
for the past 6500 yrs. Much of it would be a big uninhabitable sand box
with barren mountains, to boot.

Agriculturally, it’s very productive, being major suppliers of at least 10
different foods & crops. It grows more wheat than all of Africa & almost as
much as all of S America. They’ve been irrigating crops & foods for the past
6500 yrs which is also one reason the value added by animals raised is
about equal to its crop & food production.

So my question is, what will please these people who gripe when it’s
too wet, ignoring the fact that Pakistan NEEDS rain to be agriculturally
productive to feed its many people? Do they want a sandy desert only
able to support a few people?

An old farmer’s saying is “rain makes grain” & is why farmers prefer the
destruction from monsoons vs the more severe destruction form a drought!
With many more people than France & the UK combined & the fact that
people naturally flock to river valleys to survive, it needs the heavy
rains that will, unfortunately, also bring death & destruction. Overall,
that’s a much smaller price to pay than having no rain & starving to
death. That’s why us humans choose river valleys over deserts, where
the rare heavy rains lead to even worse flooding than in river valleys.

Greens are like children, looking for a perfection that doesn’t exist
anywhere & choose to reject the best options available. All of life is
a series of tradeoffs where one gives up something so as to hopefully
get something better in return. They really need to grow up & see this
world as it is not some childish fantasy of their youth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture_in_Pakistan

Old Man Winter
September 17, 2022 10:07 am

For those of you whose comments go into moderation, I noticed three
things that may trigger moderation:

1) Every time I referenced > 2 URLs it ALWAYS ended up in moderation.

2) Taking too long to create your post seems to trigger moderation.

3) Doing too many edits after the initial post seems to trigger moderation.

If anyone of you has a better understanding or a list or rules for this,
please let us all know. For me, typing it out on notepad/wordpad &
then pasting it keeps me out of moderation. Also, if I take a long time to
post, I’ll reload the page & start anew.

PS- IIRC, my first comment on this site triggered moderation.

Thanks!

Last edited 16 days ago by Old Man Winter
fretslider
Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 17, 2022 10:59 am

“Spam…”

One for Charles the Moderator to consider

Old Man Winter
Reply to  fretslider
September 17, 2022 11:54 am

IIRC, #2 & #3 have been, at times, labelled “spam”.
#1 goes into normal moderation.

Last edited 16 days ago by Old Man Winter
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 18, 2022 4:47 am

I have put two url’s in a post on many occasions and it did not go into moderation.

I think the number is four before it goes into moderation. I’ve only tried two at a time so far.

Last edited 15 days ago by Tom Abbott
Philip CM
September 17, 2022 11:36 am

“…the finger prints of global warming are evident.”

Clean off your computer screen. Use an e-cloth and pretend the ‘e’ stands for ecology.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Philip CM
September 18, 2022 4:58 am

“…the finger prints of global warming are evident.”

An unsubstantiated assertion.

This is all alarmist climate science is made of, unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions. They have no evidence. All they have is an “attribution “authority”.

Trillions of dollars spent, and economies and wildlife and landscapes devastated, based on nothing but unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions about CO2 and how it interacts with the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s insanity.

That’s the world we are living in thanks to a bunch of fraudulent “scientists” who have lied to the world and have inappropriately demonized the benign gas CO2 and given permission to politicians to do all sorts of stupid, destructive things in the name of controlling CO2 output, which, based on evidence, needs no control.

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
September 20, 2022 4:18 am

Climate change is now the largest industry in the world, larger even than war, as I understand it.

It was created, as an industry, by just over 40 “scientists” cooperating to enhance the prestige and budgets of their inconspicuous specialty. Never before have so many paid so much because of so few.

Unbelievable prognostications like RCP8.5 are the mainstay of ridiculous claims like the Pakistani floods being caused by an increase in CO2 emissions from human activities. What about the last floods? And the time before that? And the time before that?

Pakistan: I am sorry 1/3 of your country is flooded. I hope you can put the water to good use and that it refills all your aquifers.

Joe Gordon
September 17, 2022 11:59 am

Watching the Dessler debate strategy… they have two basic points they’re going to make. First, they stick to the Mann playbook, “hide the decline” and erase evidence of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age because their models tell them those never happened. So the last 40 years is “unprecedented warming” in billions of years.

And second, that every weather extreme of any kind is “so much worse” because of their attribution models, and it’s the last bit of worse that makes those “unprecedented disasters.”

Simple playbook, rinse and repeat. A fawning media and politicians desperate for power make it effective. It was loads of fun watching Dessler put up a quote from Rolling Stone magazine (I guess they’re experts on Stone Age weather, who knows) as the focal point of his debate presentation.

Olen
September 17, 2022 12:16 pm

Man made climate change is proportional to the size of politician’s wallets.

ozspeaksup
Reply to  Olen
September 18, 2022 3:10 am

and/or the handouts they want

climate believer
September 17, 2022 1:37 pm

Having problems passing off centuries old monsoon flooding as climate change?

Phone: World Weather Attribution on 097 564 3232

Press 1 for heatwaves
Press 2 for flooding
Press 3 for anything melting

Calling everything climate change since 2014.

————————————————

If anyone is interested the full report is here:

https://www.worldweatherattribution.org/wp-content/uploads/Scientific-report-Pakistan-floods.pdf

Shoki Kaneda
September 17, 2022 5:58 pm

“Likely, could be, might, if”
Their crap is always full of weasel words.

saveenergy
Reply to  Shoki Kaneda
September 18, 2022 1:11 am

Perhaps you are correct (:-))

Geoffrey Williams
September 18, 2022 1:47 am

Increased population is likely to have had significant cause in the devastating floods that hit Pakistan . .

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 18, 2022 2:29 am

In a world without warming a very unlikely event, a fluke.

In a world with 1 degree warming still a very unlikely event, a fluke.

So we have a fluke in a world without and a fluke in a world with warming.

What tells us that about the supposed warming? Nothing, zilch, nada, nichts. Absolutely nothing, it might as well not exist.

Incidently, the meme ‘a warming atmosphere contains more water’ assumes implicitly that relative humidity is an atmospheric invariant property. Nobody has ever demonstrated by observation that such is the case and neither is there any theoretical consideration why that should be the case.

ozspeaksup
September 18, 2022 3:03 am

lets not forget the IOD which is also helping bring decent rains to Aus from the west at long last;-)

Tom Abbott
September 18, 2022 4:24 am

From the article: “But for two storms to hit in the space of a week, at the same location, and during the wettest month of the year is an extremely rare combination of meteorological events.”

Which has nothing to do with CO2.

This extreme weather in Pakistan is similiar to when Hurricane Sandy hit New York. Sandy at New York was actually two storms combining over New York, Sandy and a Nor’easter. And this combination didn’t have anything to do with CO2, either.

In the alarmist climate science world, the temperatures are always rising. In the real world, the temperatures warm and then they cool. The Earth is currently 0.5C cooler than it was in 2016, yet the alarmists still talk about warming. They are desperately hanging on by their fingernails to the trend.

TheFinalNail
September 18, 2022 3:44 pm

It is also significant that the 7-year moving average has barely changed since the 1980s, fluctuating up and down, but with no long term trend.

Sorry, what, pardon?

Fig.4, which the above quote is referring to, clearly shows an increasing trend in rainfall since the 1960s. It’s the black dotted line.

It’s right there, rising from left to right.

This author is showing us a chart with a clear rising trend and telling us that it’s not there. He’s actually showing it to us!

What level is this site at?

Dave Andrews
Reply to  TheFinalNail
September 19, 2022 5:38 am

He also says that annual rainfall was also clearly less in the 60s and 70s but these were years of drought which were a disaster for Pakistan.

As usual the originators of the graph picked a starting date that suited their purpose

September 20, 2022 10:06 am

Regarding “Annual rainfall was clearly much less during the 1960s and 70s, the direct result of global cooling.”: If global cooling decreases Pakistan’s rainfall, then why wouldn’t global warming increase it?

%d bloggers like this: