September 25th, 2024

Europe's deadly floods are glimpse of future climate

Central Europe has faced severe flooding linked to climate change, resulting in 24 deaths and extensive damage. The EU has allocated €10 billion for emergency repairs amid worsening weather patterns.

Read original articleLink Icon
Europe's deadly floods are glimpse of future climate

Central Europe has recently experienced devastating floods exacerbated by climate change, resulting in at least 24 fatalities and significant economic damage across countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Austria, and Italy. The World Weather Attribution group noted that a recent four-day rainfall period was the heaviest on record for the region, with climate change making such extreme weather events twice as likely. While the storm, named Boris, was well-forecasted, allowing for better preparedness and potentially saving lives, the underlying climate trends indicate that similar severe weather will become more frequent and intense as global temperatures rise. Current climate models suggest that if warming reaches 2°C, rainfall events like those caused by Boris could increase in intensity by 5% and frequency by 50%. The last five years have seen Europe warming at an average of 2.3°C above 19th-century levels, leading to more extreme weather patterns. Improved flood defenses have mitigated some impacts, but experts warn that without significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, future flooding could overwhelm existing protections. The EU has committed €10 billion for emergency repairs, highlighting the financial burden of climate change. Experts emphasize that limiting global warming to below 1.5°C could significantly reduce future flood damage.

- Central Europe faces increased flooding due to climate change, with recent events causing 24 deaths.

- Climate change has made extreme rainfall events twice as likely in the region.

- Improved forecasting and flood defenses helped mitigate the impact of recent floods.

- Future flooding is expected to worsen without significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

- The EU has pledged €10 billion for emergency repairs in affected areas.

Link Icon 10 comments
By @piva00 - 21 days
What's up with so many Hacker News commenters coming out of the woodwork when headlines blame climate change to challenge it?

Just a glimpse of the article shows there's some research behind making the point of the headline, still people feel the need to comment on their feelings to deny it possibly could be due to climate change.

Per the article:

> The World Weather Attribution (WWA) group said one recent four-day period was the rainiest ever recorded in central Europe - an intensity made twice as likely by climate change.

> The kind of rainfall unleashed by Boris is thankfully still rare – expected to occur about once every 100-300 years in today’s climate, which has warmed by about 1.3C due to greenhouse gas emissions.

> But if warming reaches 2C, similar episodes will become an extra 5% more intense and 50% more frequent, the WWA warned.

> Without more ambitious climate action, global warming is expected to reach around 3C by the end of the century.

> “This is definitely what we will see much more of in the future,” said Friederike Otto, senior lecturer in climate science at Imperial College London and co-author of the WWA study.

There's a study, BBC is reporting on it and some people feel the need to challenge it even though probably know nothing of climate science?

Is science denialism reaching even folks here? What do you get out of this behaviour?

By @sylware - 21 days
Some areas may become inappropriate(lethal...) for housing. A lot of people may have to be moved, not to mention the amount of new housing to build.

Some states should have a lot of spare housing and keep it available... because because once they need it in a kind of urgent matter...

By @kkfx - 21 days
Few notes as an European NOT concerned by floods while being born in a relatively flood prone area: it's not about climate change but people who do not want to change. In the very past our ancestors have chosen settlements prone to floods sometimes, BUT with clear water available regularly because back than there was no effective pumped aqueduct and the need for clear water was the same than today, while the impact of floods was sometimes MUCH LESS than today: for instance many old homes was built of two-story with the ground level used only for animals or tools, in case of floods foods was kept at the first level and hay for livestock under the roof. In case of flood anything who suffer water wast dry, animals are easy to moves and steel/wood tools does not suffer much; today car's do not like being flooded and are not as easier to move as livestock in nature back then, we have electricity who not like water as well and so on.

Long story short, it doesn't matter if floods are more frequent or more powerful, our society have changed so our needs are different and we change homes and their location accordingly. This is a thing most people here reject vehemently. I have friends flooded multiple time, they can relocate economically alone as I do, they have no special constraint not to do so, but they refuse, they cry against the government, weather, anything else, they waste money to restore anything and keep going refusing the fact that when their ancestors have chosen a specific place there was different needs than today.

Similarly at less urgent level: back then zones with little circadian thermal variations was preferred because there was no cheap heating, so it was better for human health to be in a moderately change temperature than in a quickly change one every day. Nowadays where it's hotter in summer and we have p.v. and effective insulation it's much better for us living with large daily thermal delta because nights where we do not have p.v. we do not need to cool homes, and even if night are even cold it's not an issue thanks to insulation, while during the day we get "free" A/C with local p.v. Back than being near the sea was nice because yes, sometimes the sea invite itself inside the home, but every day we can go fishing with less time and efforts. Nowadays we can cars, roads etc being so near a certain place it's still useful sometimes but much less demanding than before and avoid salt and chlorine corrosion, submersion etc is much more important.

To going straight to the point: the world have always changes, civilizations have fallen because of that, it doesn't matter if today it's faster than ever or not, and it does not even matter much the various causes because the current climate change impose to adapt, AFTER such monumental effort we could discuss about how much we can mitigate the effects if we can or not. To implement the new deal we need anyway to rebuild anything because we can't on scale converge to electricity homes not designed to be heated with little energy, we can't generate enough, anyway aging infra and homes demand the same. It's not so "urgent" that anyone have to find a new home tomorrow, but it's about time to start discussing how to mass relocate food productions and people, starting from the most difficult areas a step at a time and year after another AND DOING SO CALMLY also makes the economy back on track because no one can de-localize the construction of a home, at least not for the largest part of the job.

By @pvaldes - 21 days
I still think that all those oil and weapon depots exploding relatively close to Poland, the Czech Republic, Romania, Austria and Italy have something to say here.

Hot clouds travel far away in no time and a similar stormy behavior has been seen lots of times in pyrocumulus from big wildfires before.