This is apocalyptic. Imagine something 100km from where you live, and that whole span between you and there being under water tomorrow. in a movie, that wouldn’t feel real no matter how good the special effects are, it’s too out there
> in a movie, that wouldn’t feel real no matter how good the special effects are, it’s too out there
This entire thing just reminds me of Day After Tomorrow (2004). Although the movie had a lot of bad science, way too many people called the premise and social outcomes of the movie ridiculous. Hell, the South Park criticism of it alone significantly pushed this current batch of climate deniers.
I thought it was telling when South Park basically walked back the whole "The vote's between Shit Sandwich and a Turd" or whatever and said "Vote for Hillary".
It was as if they hadn't realized the amount that people draw from their work.
It was _pretty explicit_, the turnaround. Or at least it felt that way to me.
Saying that The Day After Tomorrow had a lot of bad science is a bit of an understatement, isn't it? It's like saying Hershey's chocolate bar has a lot of chocolate in it.
The premise and outcome of some large scale disaster you imagined being ridiculous does not means that any scenario of large scale disaster is ridiculous.
Suffering has been normalized for some, unfortunately, and any devastation striking that region is glossed over almost as if calamity is expected to befall. See for instance the outcry and support for Ukraine (not diminishing their dire circumstances by any means) and immediate call to take refugees while sympathy for southern and western Asian states has fallen to the wayside.
From the NASA image it looks like the whole area is a flood plain. Similar to a large area of the Los Angeles basin. We have a paved riverbed system to get rid of water from heavy rains which periodically occur. I assume Pakistan doesn't have the resources to do something like that.
You have a paved riverbed system to get rid of moderate rains which periodically occur.
That will be insufficient for a 100-year flood (~1000 acres underwater by current mapping), and a 200-year or 500-year flood would put significant fractions of the city underwater.
I was trying to figure out a relatable comparison on a map. Looking from one side of the flood lake to the other would be like trying to spot Niagara Falls from Toronto, or San Jose from San Francisco - never mind that the distance is large enough for Earth's curvature to get in the way. And that's just thinking of it as a cross-sectional view of the lake, which doesn't say much about area.
The way I ended up explaining it to my kids was that 33M people were affected. San Francisco population is ~800k, so around 40 SFs worth of people are impacted.
How deep is it? I mean, I'm sure there are areas that are a few inches deep and others that are dozens of feet, but generally speaking -- is this more or less than the height of a single story?
Edit: And is it generally of similar depth or does it vary greatly from locale to locale?
Not to minimize the suffering of a poor country with limited state capacity to adequately address this tragedy, but this exact scenario more or less happened in Houston during Hurricane Harvey.
SpaceManNabs|3 years ago
This entire thing just reminds me of Day After Tomorrow (2004). Although the movie had a lot of bad science, way too many people called the premise and social outcomes of the movie ridiculous. Hell, the South Park criticism of it alone significantly pushed this current batch of climate deniers.
codyb|3 years ago
It was as if they hadn't realized the amount that people draw from their work.
It was _pretty explicit_, the turnaround. Or at least it felt that way to me.
yongjik|3 years ago
marcosdumay|3 years ago
walthamstow|3 years ago
ericmay|3 years ago
> Two days before the day after tomorrow
> Bah gawd... that's today
throwrqX|3 years ago
ethbr0|3 years ago
It makes you understand the importance of Brazil, Nigeria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Indonesia for things that impact people.
DoreenMichele|3 years ago
Pakistan is the world's fifth-most-populous country.
The population is young: in 2019 34.8% were thought to be 14 or younger
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youth_in_Pakistan
Pakistan has one of the world's youngest populations.
The country's population structure is relatively young, with a median age of 19.
Pakistan is also thought to have the world's fourth-largest refugee population, estimated at 1.4 million in mid-2021
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Pakistan
rajman187|3 years ago
hotpotamus|3 years ago
jimjimjim|3 years ago
vondur|3 years ago
mapt|3 years ago
That will be insufficient for a 100-year flood (~1000 acres underwater by current mapping), and a 200-year or 500-year flood would put significant fractions of the city underwater.
https://eng2.lacity.org/projects/LARIVER_Glendale_Narrows/do...
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
boruto|3 years ago
3pt14159|3 years ago
Crazy stuff.
lhorie|3 years ago
The way I ended up explaining it to my kids was that 33M people were affected. San Francisco population is ~800k, so around 40 SFs worth of people are impacted.
boppo1|3 years ago
That's not to say this isn't shocking or a sign of radical climate change.
daveslash|3 years ago
How deep is it? I mean, I'm sure there are areas that are a few inches deep and others that are dozens of feet, but generally speaking -- is this more or less than the height of a single story?
Edit: And is it generally of similar depth or does it vary greatly from locale to locale?
tromp|3 years ago
testfoobar|3 years ago
https://www.tiktok.com/tag/swatflood?lang=en
nocoiner|3 years ago
senectus1|3 years ago
The entire state would grind to a halt, much the rest of the country would suffer seriously as well.
ElijahLynn|3 years ago