Over 60 dead, dozens missing as severe floods strike Europe

Increases of natural disasters are recently addressed in connection with the climate changes and the reduction of carbon emissions is becoming the world trend. Will natural disasters really get reduced by limiting carbon emissions? What is the evidence of it?

Torrential rain is causing floods and disasters everywhere in the world - in Europe and Asia.　Tragic indeed.  Is this the result of global warming?

No, it’s the result of climate change.

From the beginning of time there has been flooding on Earth - and the Earths climate has always changed. Coincidence? I think not.

 Is this the result of global warming?

No, it’s the result of climate change.

exactly.

From the beginning of time there has been flooding on Earth - and the Earths climate has always changed. Coincidence? I think not.

The vast majority of people who deny climate change have no scientific literacy whatsoever. Coincidence? I think not.

From the beginning of time there has been flooding on Earth - and the Earths climate has always changed. Coincidence? I think not.

I agree.

Depends on which science you want to believe, there are so many scientists that give counter arguments and dispute these claims, but like with everything else, you can’t debate it, you have to just accept it and always take science from the view of the left-period.

*I was born and raised in a small town in the mountainous US west, where forest fires have long been a reality. I am not making a there have always been fires and floods defense of the fossil economy. *

*But it does seem the fires have gotten bigger and even more destructive recently. Making the following more credible, except perhaps to the anti-science crowds; Scientists say heat waves arriving in the western U.S. and Canada in late June would have been "virtually impossible" without human-caused climate change.*

*I will also add the US west and the world in general are paying heavy prices for decades of poor resource management. Resource extractors and predatory capitalists aided by their supporters in governments, who have left them alone, need to be held accountable. *

Facts.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

https://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/climate-time-machine

This graph goes back 11,000 years. The nearly vertical red line represents average global temperatures from 1960-2000. The anomalous rapid rise in global temperatures is painfully obvious and not anything like past warm periods in Earth's history.

https://kottke.org/13/09/temperature-chart-for-the-last-11000-years

The long term trend for the past 3000 years has been a steady cooling of the climate. Then suddenly in the 1960s the Earth warms up very rapidly, faster than any prior period. It is not a natural phenomena but human induced.

Condolences to all the victims and their families. A terrible event.

Increases of natural disasters are recently addressed in connection with the climate changes and the reduction of carbon emissions is becoming the world trend. Will natural disasters really get reduced by limiting carbon emissions? What is the evidence of it?

Heating the planet, especially rising ocean temperatures makes weather more violent. It is well known that the warmer the water is in mid latitudes the stronger hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones are as they pull their energy from the warm ocean waters. Hotter land creates stronger convection currents and convection in a moist atmosphere sets the stage for big thunderstorms and tornados. That is why most big T-storms happen in the afternoon after the ground warms up sufficiently.

WolfpackToday  07:49 am JST

From the beginning of time there has been flooding on Earth - and the Earths climate has always changed. Coincidence? I think not.

Yeah it's just another flooding, as long as it doesnt affect you, right?

Depends on which science you want to believe, there are so many scientists that give counter arguments and dispute these claims

In this case "so many" of course means "a laughable minority deep in the pockets of big coal and big oil".

Apparently there are still 1300 people missing, so the scale of the disaster could turn out to be much bigger.

My sympathies to all those affected.

Climate change, erosion of river banks due to natural and man made causes are making the situation worse.

If you deny these you might as well deny evolution and have the brain size of of your ancestors a few million years ago.

These scientists are in tiny minority.

I wouldn’t say tiny, their voices are for some reason drowned out and that should never be.

Incorrect, but it is nice to see the victim card being played so early.

I disagree, the views of science is only accepted by left power structure without any dissent. It’s accepted as fact and cannot be refuted.

*I was born and raised in a small town in the mountainous US west, where forest fires have long been a reality.

So was I. I am old enough to remember aircraft like surplus B-17s and PBYs being used to drop retardant on fires. Old enough to remember the very first use of a helicopter in direct attack fire fighting, an LA County Fire Department pilot named Roland Bartman who preferred to be called Bart. He is responsible for the design of what is still called the "LA County Tank", a belly mounted electrically operated water and retardant tank. But the fires when I was a kid were generally 1000 acres. A 3000 acre fire was a really big fire. And the fire season started in late August or September and the big fires didn't happen until the Santa Ana winds came up in October and November. Today the fires are orders of magnitude larger and are happening months earlier in the year. LA County Fire has 8 helicopters today including 3 Firehawks, a Blackhawk derivative designed especially for LA County and the City of LA has 7 helicopters including five AW139s, a far cry from the little Bell 47s they started with. Between them they are able to get a jump on most fires and knock them down before they can grow very large but when the winds come up they are often overwhelmed. In all my life I have never seen skies so full of smoke, and for so many weeks, as we experience now. It is nothing like it was fifty years ago when I was a kid.

Climate change is no longer debatable.

The only debates that should be happening are the best courses of action - the urgent systemic changes that are needed to minimise the worst effects of the climate crisis.

Heavier rains, more lightening (30~40% more than a few decades ago), record freezes and snowfall, record heating, slower, more powerful storms - they have all been predicted and are all connected to more heat energy in the oceans, land and weather systems.

Seems like more evidence of climate change, and the cooling of the planet.

I disagree, the views of science is only accepted by left power structure without any dissent. It’s accepted as fact and cannot be refuted.

Completely false. Scientific ideal, if questioned by the information refuting it, will not be accepted.

Anyone who has gone through an educational process in science understands how hypothesis to theory works, and it is done as process to observe, make inferences on those observations and then performing rigorous tests to see if those inferences hold up.

What you don't understand is this is not a left/right thing, it is completely based on proof by testing of an idea, and those tests are a detailed procedure to prove or disprove that idea in the attempt to acquire knowledge of the world around us.

Compartmentalizing science as a left belief with no dissent is a statement of not understanding nor wanting to understand the process of science nor its resultant theories.

Why does it always have to be a left versus right argument?

I always ask that question, it shouldn’t be at all. We should be allowed to look at the data from various angles and listen to experts that support or dispute these theories, there’s always a middle ground, the problem starts when one side dismisses the other and you will never convince anyone to come to your side if you dismiss them. Why would anyone listen if they’re not even allowed to dissent? I wouldn’t. So in debates like these all angles of science should be acknowledged and the scientists respected.

@bass4funk

Why does it always have to be a left versus right argument?

When someone doesn’t have the mental capacity to analyze or comprehend something they sometimes find it helpful to boil it down to a simplicity they can feel confident in repeating, again and again.

When someone doesn’t have the mental capacity to analyze or comprehend something

That feeling goes both ways, but all sides need to be respected whether we like it or not. We don’t have to like or agree with each other’s scientific beliefs, but we should respect them.

I always ask that question, it shouldn’t be at all. We should be allowed to look at the data from various angles and listen to experts that support or dispute these theories, there’s always a middle ground

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

Argument to moderation, also known as false compromise, argument from middle ground, and the golden mean fallacy, is the fallacy that the truth is a compromise between two opposing positions.

Like Bukovski said, there is no middle ground between information and disinformation.

We don’t have to like or agree with each other’s scientific beliefs, but we should respect them.

Science is not a matter of belief. This post-modern, pothead "woah nothing is real man" conservatism really is appalling.

Like Bukovski said, there is no middle ground between information and disinformation.

Both sides can claim this, depends on what you believe, all the more reason for dissent and that everyone can come to the middle and debate these issues seriously and respectively regardless of which science you believe in.

Both sides can claim this, depends on what you believe, all the more reason for dissent and that everyone can come to the middle

The matter has already been "debated" and settled for decades. What do you have to gain from going against the scientific consensus, exactly? Do you think it makes you interesting? Or sound reasonable? It doesn't. It's the exact opposite. Not to mention, denying climate change is by now a criminal negligence. You are directly contributing to future catastrophies. I wonder if you'll still appeal to your middle ground fallacy once Miami is under water.

everyone can come to the middle and debate these issues seriously and respectively regardless of which science you believe in.

Where is the middle ground with a flat-earther? What do we compromise on? A rugby ball shape?

Put it in school textbooks?

Climate change scientists said the coasts would be under water by year 2000. Cities would be wiped from the face of the earth due to heat.

hint: they aren’t.

The picture at the top of the article isn't loading for me. Could you tell me what it depicts?

Climate change scientists said the coasts would be under water by year 2000. 

Which climate scientist said that?

I disagree, the views of science is only accepted by left

Oh boy, here we go again. Talking about natural disasters but some people always need to turn this into politics. Like my dad who's a hardcore religious guy who needs to explain absolutely everything with "but the bible says yada yada."

An unfortunate aspect of evolution is that there is a part of the human race which is regressing.

Climate change deniers also deny gravity, believe in flat earth and push back against science. One of the theories of evolution was that the human race will separate into smart people with bigger brains and the not-so-smart people with smaller brains.

Instead of it happening a few thousand years in the future, we are seeing it happen right before our eyes.

I disagree, the views of science is only accepted by left

Correct, the right hates science. That's why they're climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and think that forest fires are caused by Jewish Space Lazers.

The matter has already been "debated" and settled for decades.

By one side, other scientists that have shown counter evidence are either canceled, are not allowed to be booked or have to find other ways to get their scientific point of view across to the public. We are a Democratic Republic and we should never silence one side just because it doesn’t meet a political sides narrative.

What do you have to gain from going against the scientific consensus, exactly?

What do you have to gain from silencing opposing scientific viewpoints

Do you think it makes you interesting? Or sound reasonable? It doesn't.

That’s your personal opinion, there are millions that are open to various points of view, I most definitely am.

Not to mention, denying climate change is by now a criminal negligence.

So you mean, if you do, the climate supporter police will reign you in?

You are directly contributing to future catastrophies. I wonder if you'll still appeal to your middle ground fallacy once Miami is under water.

I am not contributing to anything other than broadening the discussion. I refuse to allow anyone from either side dictate and push me to accept one-sided partisan scientific facts and deny me the right to ask or dispute them, wrong person. I won’t yield or be silenced. I want to know all sides of the debate and then I will come up with my own personal opinion on the matter.

By one side, other scientists that have shown counter evidence are either canceled, are not allowed to be booked or have to find other ways to get their scientific point of view across to the public.

People found to lie, manipulate or fabricate data should be shunned upon, science is useful only as long as the data presented is real and analyzed in a valid way, those who choose not (or don't have the capacity ) to do it are not worth of being in the discussion.

At the age of preprints "get a scientific point of view across" is simple and easy, and I have no idea why you think reaching "the public" is important, what dissenters from a consensus need to do is to reach scientists because the main point is to convince them their scientific reasons are actually real. The public at this point has no importance.

Silencing invalid, pseudoscientific viewpoints is valid and desirable. Polluting a discussion with false data or invalid arguments is not "broadening" it.

Seems like more evidence of climate change, and the cooling of the planet.

Heating of the oceans and atmosphere drives more violent storms. Hot ocean waters feed cyclones. The hotter the water the more powerful the storm. When I was in the Navy in the 1980s sea water temps in the mid latitudes were in the mid to high 30s Celsius (mid to high 80s F). Hot ground creates the convection currents that, combined with moist air, drive big thunderstorms. Hot ground causes air to rise rapidly. As it does it cools until the air temp hits the dew point and clouds form. With enough uplift from convection you get massive cumulonimbus clouds and destructive thunderstorms. We had to learn about this to be a safe pilot as pilots live and too often die with the weather. It is not a mystery at all. Hotter oceans and hotter air drives more violent storms. Pretty straightforward.

 regardless of which science you believe in.

This is really conflating political debates with scientific debates, which are two different things.

Political debates involve beliefs. They are often just point-scoring exercises between people with opposing viewpoints looking to win in a zero-sum game against their opponent. Most of the comments on sites like this are that type of debate.

Scientific debates aren't like that. Its not about beliefs, its about evidence. It isn't a contest either. Scientists aren't interested in scoring points against each other, they are looking to discover the truth based on evidence.

They follow the scientific method - formulate a hypothesis, then look at all the evidence to determine if that hypothesis is correct or not. Different scientists may form different hypotheses about the same thing and debate which is stronger based on the evidence that exists at the time - this is what a "scientific debate" is. As new evidence is discovered the community as a whole will get a better idea about which of these is the best at explaining the evidence and hypotheses which are inconsistent with reality will be discarded. Scientists used to for example debate whether the Milky Way galaxy was the entirety of the universe or not. As evidence drawn from astronomy piled up, it became increasingly clear that other galaxies outside the Milky Way also existed, causing that hypothesis to be discarded and scientists to move on.

Looking at how the scientific debate on climate change has played out, the scientific community as a whole has long since discarded the hypotheses that CO2 emissions don't have an effect on the climate because it is completely inconsistent with the mass of evidence that has been uncovered through research. They don't engage with fringe scientists who continue to espouse that theory not because of some secret political agenda, but because those fringe scientists are espousing a hypothesis that is at odds with reality, and they aren't providing evidence that would establish the truth of their claims.

So you can go on and engage in a political debate, but don't pretend you are engaging in a scientific one just because the topic of your political opinion happens to involve something connected to "science".

Why does it always have to be a left versus right argument?

I think the answer is simple: The right are controlled by big business - oil, chemical, transport so want business as usual - turning natural and social capital into short term profits and accumulated wealth.

As a result, they have no interest in more responsible government controls/interference - needed if there is to be any chance of dealing with the climate crisis.

This is really conflating political debates with scientific debates, which are two different things.

I disagree and also agree. It shouldn’t be conflated but the reality is, the left are all on one page and absolutely refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints on the right and these viewpoints might not necessarily be from scientists that have conservative views, they just have a different scientifically viewpoint and because of that, they are marginalized and silenced and that’s where politics, curiosity and conspiracy theories start to arise and the left starts to excoriate them as QAnon or whatever euphemism that come to their minds because now you’re adding in the race component as well. This is extremely disturbing as well as disgusting. Just let’s debate the issue and respect everyone’s point of view, dissent should be allowed as well as skepticism, it doesn’t belong to the Dems only or to the science that fits their political driven narrative.

Desert TortoiseToday  10:52 am JST

Heating of the oceans and atmosphere drives more violent storms.The hotter the water the more powerful the storm. When I was in the Navy in the 1980s sea water temps in the mid latitudes were in the mid to high 30s... It is not a mystery at all. Hotter oceans and hotter air drives more violent storms. Pretty straightforward.

It is pretty straightforward that the floods were not a result of storms generated by sea water temperatures in the mid to high 30s. The highest summer temperatures in the North Sea near the north of Germany are around 20 or so; and do not even come close to the mid or high 30s.

Also, Insul Germany, which was hit hard by the floods, is far inland, and is experiencing normal temperatures; albeit a few degrees cooler than normal.

P. Smith,

Climate change is caused by global warming which is in return caused by human activity, a pursuit of comfortable modern life. So if floods are caused by climate change, it's ultimately the human activity that is the most responsible for causing these floods and disasters.

I think the answer is simple: The right are controlled by big business - oil, chemical, transport so want business as usual - turning natural and social capital into short term profits and accumulated wealth.

The left are controlled by big tech, the unions, the lobbyists, social media and science industries and most white collared jobs as well as Hollywood and the entire entertainment and now sports industry to push not only a radical one-sided scientific viewpoint, but it seems China seems to be more involved and having more of their hands in these and other matters as well and you can see now who’s becoming richer.

Coincidence? I think not.

...it was aliens.

I disagree and also agree. It shouldn’t be conflated but the reality is, the left are all on one page and absolutely refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints on the right and these viewpoints might not necessarily be from scientists that have conservative views, they just have a different scientifically viewpoint and because of that, they are marginalized and silenced and that’s where politics, curiosity and conspiracy theories start to arise and the left starts to excoriate them as QAnon or whatever euphemism that come to their minds because now you’re adding in the race component as well. This is extremely disturbing as well as disgusting. Just let’s debate the issue and respect everyone’s point of view, dissent should be allowed as well as skepticism, it doesn’t belong to the Dems only or to the science that fits their political driven narrative.

Again though you are just framing this as a political debate. I note that others are doing the same and its not just you, but at any rate if you really want to understand the true state of knowledge on a scientific topic this is the worst way of doing so.

Again :scientific method. Hypothesis - Evidence - Conclusion.

Take the subject matter of this article. Stripping the political baggage from the debate you are left with two potential scientific hypotheses about it.

Hypothesis 1: This flooding was caused by climate change.

Hypothesis 2: This flooding was not caused by climate change.

What does the evidence say about these? In an actual scientific debate we'd have to go through hundreds of pages of research, which is obviously not practical in a comment like this. I think the weight of the scientific evidence though indicates that climate change through a variety of means can be said to elevate the risks of events like this, but due to the complexity of factors involved its impossible to say whether a specific incident like this was caused by climate change or just a natural occurrence.

So both of the hypotheses are wrong, and in fact are kind of useless hypotheses to have raised in the first place from a scientific perspective. This also indicates the problem of approaching things like this through a political lense, it leads to questions that have no scientific value.

because now you’re adding in the race component as well. This is extremely disturbing as well as disgusting. Just let’s debate the issue and respect everyone’s point of view, 

What race component? You’re the one always dropping that in.

“I’m tired of all these so called experts. I believe I can fly this airplane and you all need to respect my opinion”

Again though you are just framing this as a political debate.

Because it technically is, I just talked about it.

I note that others are doing the same and its not just you, but at any rate if you really want to understand the true state of knowledge on a scientific topic this is the worst way of doing so.

Well, you can make that claim for both sides, but I will submit to you, it’s the science climate change supporters that want to silence any opposition debate. As long as the left doesn’t want to listen to opposing viewpoints, don’t expect the other side to listen as well.

Because it technically is, I just talked about it.

No, the question of whether or not climate change is related to events like this is a scientific debate, not a political one. The politics - on both sides - is all just BS noise if you actually want to know the answer to that question .

The political debate that runs parrallel to it really has nothing of value to contribute to the scientific debate, its just angry people with different ideologies yelling at each other.

Well, you can make that claim for both sides,

True, as far as the political side goes, and I acknowledged as much.

but I will submit to you, it’s the science climate change supporters that want to silence any opposition debate. As long as the left doesn’t want to listen to opposing viewpoints, don’t expect the other side to listen as well.

That, again, is the political debate you are describing. If you want to know about what is actually happening, ignore the politics and read the science.

One encouraging thing is that the younger generation are very concerned about climate change, which is natural given they will suffer in the future. The ‘Well, I won’t be here anyway’ generation will become less relevant.

Politicians spouting that climate change is a hoax created by the Chinese will have to change that tune. There will of course be a new crop of ‘alternative media’ types who’ll latch on to that, but hopefully their numbers will stay within limits.

I think it will fall off the rightwing hymn sheet. Hopefully it will be sooner rather than later given the severity of the situation.

Insul Germany, which was hit hard by the floods, is far inland

A mere 280 km or so from the coast. Hardly 'far inland' in global weather terms.

It seems this situation could be easily predicted (and was predicted) by meteorologists a few days in advance, the governments should have issued evacuation instructions. Instead of apologizing for negligence they blame the climate change.

bass4funkToday 08:21 am JST

From the beginning of time there has been flooding on Earth - and the Earths climate has always changed. Coincidence? I think not.

I agree.

Depends on which science you want to believe, there are so many scientists that give counter arguments and dispute these claims, but like with everything else, you can’t debate it, you have to just accept it and always take science from the view of the left-period.

The good thing with science is that it's irrelevant whether you believe in it on not. It's not the discussion of opinions but facts.