Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 187 posts

Re: Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

#161

Post by acchow »

highwaylights wrote: post #150
CydeWeys wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What countries do you think this is true of? Even, say, France is still growing. Let alone the US.

US birth rate: 1.70 France birth rate: 1.87 Japan birth rate: 1.36 Pakistan birth rate: 3.45 So Pakistan, unlike many more developed countries, has a birth rate higher than the replacement rate, but significantly lower than it’s 1950 to 2000 highs over 6 - and trending downwards. The population would be expected to drop precipitously, but not soon.

Your logic is not sound.

As long as birth rate remains above the replacement rate, population will not drop.

Pakistan's birth rate has fallen significantly (but still above the replacement rate), so you will expect population growth to plummet, but not the population number itself

Re: Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

#162

Post by kurupt213 »

Comevius wrote: post #152
kurupt213 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human activity is responsible for less than 5% of greenhouse gasses. One eruption can spew decades worth of gases into the air

This is misinformation. Volcanoes are responsible for less than 0.5 Gt of the global CO2 emissions a year. That's a bit less than the 50 Gt we are responsible for. Volcanoes and solar flares would have caused a slight cooling in the last 100 years, not a sharp warming we are experiencing. There is a natural carbon cycle, which is quite balanced in that there is barely any radiative forcing, which is the difference be…

It’s not misinformation. We don’t have major eruptions every year. And only 5% of annual carbon emissions are anthropomorphic.

I agree humans are responsible for increasing CO2, but not because of emissions. The earth should act as a buffered system, with utility of atmospheric carbon rising with carbon levels.

There’s another paper in nature describing how the mass slaughter of baleen whales broke the iron cycle at the poles. Mass whale poop fed the krill who are critical to fixing iron…the high iron krill poop is what feeds the plankton blooms. Polar plankton was critical to sinking excess atmospheric carbon.

Re: Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

#163

Post by Comevius »

kurupt213 wrote: post #162
Comevius wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is misinformation. Volcanoes are responsible for less than 0.5 Gt of the global CO2 emissions a year. That's a bit less than the 50 Gt we are responsible for. Volcanoes and solar flares would have caused a slight cooling in the last 100 years, not a sharp warming we are experiencing. There is a natural carbon cycle, which is quite balanced in that there is barely any radiative forcing, which is the difference be…

It’s not misinformation. We don’t have major eruptions every year. And only 5% of annual carbon emissions are anthropomorphic. I agree humans are responsible for increasing CO2, but not because of emissions. The earth should act as a buffered system, with utility of atmospheric carbon rising with carbon levels. There’s another paper in nature describing how the mass slaughter of baleen whales broke the iron cycle at…

It's misinformation because the natural carbon cycle adds and removes CO2 that keeps a balance. Around 750 Gt of carbon moves through the carbon cycle each year, and the keyword here is that it moves through. The natural emissions are always counterbalanced. The biological pump is one of the most important part of this system, which evolved to work like this.

Unfortunately as it turns out this system can't cope with the extra emissions. Most of it is still absorbed, but a lot of it lingers in the atmosphere, causing trouble. Even the oceans have trouble absorbing the extra emissions. They now threaten the biological pump itself.

This is why people are so depressed when it comes to climate change, because never mind the greenhouse effect, which is in itself substantial, but once you screw with things like the biological pump there is no telling what will happen. This is a big, fine-tuned system, not unlike a spaceship. It is very risky to poke it. Granted it is likely that the system will snap back into working conditions in a few million years, but that's not exactly reassuring for us.

Re: Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

#164

Post by throwaway111555 »

rr888 wrote: post #116
hh3k0 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Pakistan's population in 2050 will be closer to 37 million than to 370 million.

Nukes?

"Too little, too late" to decimate it with the nukes (

Re: Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

#165

Post by dumpsterlid »

nomel wrote: post #82
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #64

"Pakistan is home to over 7,200 glaciers, more than anywhere outside the poles. Rising temperatures, linked to climate change, are likely making many of them melt faster and earlier, adding water to rivers and streams that are already swollen by rainfall." https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2022/8/30/23327341/pa...

> Pakistan is home to over 7,200 glaciers, more than anywhere outside the poles It seems odd to give a measure of ice as the count of the pieces.

A glacier is defined by the valley/valleys it inhabits, it has a locality and flows like a river does. It seems odd to give it a name, but it is no more odd than naming a river.

Re: Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

#166

Post by pfdietz »

morsch wrote: post #160
pfdietz wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

10% of the stratosphere's typical stock.

If true, the article should be changed. Isn't the stratosphere extremely dry?

Yes, that's why a single eruption can have a noticeable effect.

Stratospheric water may also set the upper limit on how many launches to orbit can be done per year, since all the propellant consumed in or above the stratosphere makes water that ends up in the stratosphere.

Re: Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

#167

Post by nomel »

aliswe wrote: post #156
nomel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pakistan is home to over 7,200 glaciers, more than anywhere outside the poles It seems odd to give a measure of ice as the count of the pieces.

glaciers do have a certain minimum size, though.

It appears USGS roughly defines it as 0.1 square kilometers [1], or (being American) about 6 Walmarts.

1. https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/there-size-criterion-glacier

Re: Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

#168

Post by As_You_Wish »

hh3k0 wrote: post #112
rr888 wrote: post #56

Reminder that population is Pakistan's population 6x it was at 1950. In 2050 its expected to be 370 million people compared to 37 million in 1950. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Pakistan

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Pakistan's population in 2050 will be closer to 37 million than to 370 million.

I'm going to not go on a limb and say that by 2050, the entire population of the world will be closer to 37 million than 370 million.

Mark my words.

100% think this.

That's my futurology projection.

Re: Why are Pakistan’s floods so extreme this year?

#169

Post by nomel »

booboofixer wrote: post #119
nomel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pakistan is home to over 7,200 glaciers, more than anywhere outside the poles It seems odd to give a measure of ice as the count of the pieces.

See 'List of longest glaciers on Earth in non-polar regions' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers

57 is much less than 7,200.
Post reply on HN