
New Satellite Photos Show Climate Change Is Sweeping Europe - pseudolus
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-04-09/new-satellite-photos-show-europe-s-changing-climate
======
lazyjones
On terrascope.be, there is no such large difference between July 2017 and 2018
satellite images (Belgium, somewhere in the North because images wouldn't load
for some areas):

[https://viewer.terrascope.be/terrascope/?language=en&date=18...](https://viewer.terrascope.be/terrascope/?language=en&date=18/7/2017&bbox=2.5988830532184575,50.88935237388327,2.925726314937208,51.05948508356582&overlay=true&compareEnabled=true&layer=CGS_S2_RADIOMETRY&baseCompareDate=2017-07-18T10:13:46.000Z&compareLayer=CGS_S2_RADIOMETRY&compareDate=2018-07-15T10:00:28.000Z)

This may well be before/after harvest or early vs. late July images on
bloomberg.com - it's such things that have made me very skeptical about the
climate change debate. And of course, some people are quickly downvoting facts
they don't like.

~~~
mturmon
There _is_ a notable difference between the images you link. Apparently [1]
the drought/heat wave in Belgium started on July 13 2018 (and ended on 7
August), so the image-pair you link was near the beginning of the event. The
data on the nifty pair-viewer you link to is sporadic, so it's tedious to find
other matches.

But another story centered on the same theme already found matches:

[https://www.businessinsider.com/satellite-images-shows-
whole...](https://www.businessinsider.com/satellite-images-shows-whole-
nations-fried-by-this-summers-heatwave-2018-8)

It shows a bunch of 2017/2018 image-pairs from places like Sweden, Denmark,
and Germany with features from the drought.

Surely we are not arguing that there was no drought during that year, or that
it's somehow not visible from remote sensing data?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_European_heat_wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_European_heat_wave)

~~~
lazyjones
> Surely we are not arguing that there was no drought during that year, or
> that it's somehow not visible from remote sensing data?

We're arguing that there is a difference between thorough scientific methods
and carefully picking out selected data points to show a dramatic situation
that isn't.

~~~
mturmon
It's pretty clear that the 2018 heat event was indeed an exceptional event,
especially in Northern Europe. This is not "a dramatic situation that isn't".

Of course articles in the popular press are going to use different narrative
techniques ("give them concrete examples!" is the usual advice to science
writers) than scientific papers would. So if you want "thorough scientific
methods", you'd have to look elsewhere.

This is the closest I've found to an attribution study of to what extent
climate change is responsible for this heatwave event:

[http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-07-27-heatwave-made-twice-
like...](http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2018-07-27-heatwave-made-twice-likely-
climate-change)

A gloss on the larger significance of the report in the growing area of
"attribution" is here:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05849-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05849-9)

~~~
lazyjones
> _an exceptional event, especially in Northern Europe. This is not "a
> dramatic situation that isn't"._

Exceptional, yes. Unprecedented, no.

> _So if you want "thorough scientific methods", you'd have to look
> elsewhere._

I'd be happy if there was less cherry-picking and more linking to raw sources
for verification. If this was about people of particular ethnicities
committing crimes, people would cry foul and "racism" at such hand-picked
examples.

------
itissid
There was a european heat wave in 2003 that killed thousands a day and 70,000
total[1]. If 70K people in the US died from a single large climate change
induced event change, people might start to talk.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_European_heat_wave)

~~~
MR4D
The heat wave lasted 25 days (using the above poster's dates). That's a run
rate of almost exactly 1 million additional deaths per year.

Given the European population of 741 million, and an 80 year average life
span, then they were able to attribute an additional 0.001686909582% of deaths
to climate change.

That's roughly two out of one thousand signal to noise ratio. [0] According to
one study medical examiners disagreed on cause of death in 12% (TWELVE
PERCENT!!!) of cases. [1 & 2]

Either my math is bad (definitely possible), or I'm calling bullshit on the
numbers.

[0] - my calculation was as follows: 70,000 deaths / 25 days * 365 days per
year / 741,000,000 people in Europe / 80 year life expectancy * 100.00%

[1] -
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29091542](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29091542)

[2] -
[https://www.thename.org/assets/2018Handouts/2.3%20-%20McGive...](https://www.thename.org/assets/2018Handouts/2.3%20-%20McGivern%2C%20Lauri.pdf)

~~~
MR4D
If you downvoted me, then show your math. At least I put mine out there.

------
kylia
Not sure how to feel other than sick about this. I wonder what more it will
take to have something actually be done about this, haha.

~~~
neuronic
It seems like an issue would be the requirement of massive cuts into freedom -
possibly preventing people from pursuing their livelihoods. At the very least,
these livelihoods have to be significantly shifted. Convincing people to
support or even drive these uncomfortable changes in their lives is more than
hard.

Look at car manufacturing. I doubt we will be able to 1:1 replace jobs related
to combustion-engine based cars. There are so many parts and corresponding
suppliers involved. It all vanishes with electric cars due to their
comparative simplicity. From resources mining to car mechanic - many people
are directly affected.

Of course new jobs will arise with electric cars, new mobility and
computerized driving. But those are not for the drive train engineers,
manufacturers and related workforce. Those will be for new, highly trained
individuals or appear in a different sector, such as service - and that is if
these new jobs aren't automated anyways.

Replacing plastic straws is facing severe opposition because the alternatives
are not well liked. For quite a lot of people it is more important to have a
non-soggy straw than to let one less bird die.

Many of us are also ready to reduce flying, especially ridiculously cheap
flights that make your carbon footprint explode. Others, less fortunate than
us, depend on such flights for their only vacation this year.

Are we going to take that away from them in the name of climate by imposing a
carbon tax? Should a flight from Northern Europe to Tenerife really cost 90€
while blowing enormous amounts of CO2 into the damaged atmosphere?

We are getting into authoritarianism here at some point...

~~~
brandon272
One thing I am finding really nuts is that, in spite of what we now know about
climate change, North American drivers are currently thirsting for larger and
larger, less fuel efficient, very expensive trucks and sport utility vehicles.
Auto manufacturers are currently tripping over themselves to design and
produce larger vehicles to satisfy that demand.

Given that, I have a _really_ hard time reconciling the "we just can't do
anything, sorry, it'll hurt our freedoms" attitude with the "I don't care
about my CO2 output" attitude that is evident in the consumption behaviours of
most people I see. It's as if they consider outputting tonne after tonne of
carbon into the atmosphere as a point of pride or immutable entitlement.

~~~
drak0n1c
The data shows that the U.S. lowered emissions in 2017 and 2018 more than
other major countries. A fraction of the <10% of emissions that personal
vehicles make up isn't worth focusing valuable attention and effort toward.

[https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-
emissio...](https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/04/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-
down-europea)

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-
u-s-...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-
all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/)

~~~
brandon272
Our views on vehicles and vehicle fuel consumption are symbolic of how we view
our commitment to lowering emissions. People aren't buying huge SUV's because
they've analyzed the data to determine that the relative impact of their
consumption isn't worth buying a smaller vehicle. They are choosing to spend
more on fuel-guzzling vehicles (and spend more on fuel) because their
consumption and output is an afterthought.

While total overall emissions (in the U.S.) may be steady or shrinking, the
total amount of emissions for transportation is growing. There's no excuse for
that. All it tells us is that an overall reduction in GHG emissions _could be
even lower_ if people made slightly more conscientious transport choices.

[https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-2017-us-
emissions/](https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-2017-us-emissions/)

~~~
jfnixon
"People aren't buying huge SUV's because they've analyzed the data to
determine that the relative impact of their consumption isn't worth buying a
smaller vehicle."

Just curious how you know this to be true.

~~~
brandon272
It's an assumption. Would be happy to be proven wrong if you know otherwise.

~~~
jfnixon
Anecdotal only, but I notice my friends with more than 3 kids need a larger
vehicle. Also, heavier vehicles are safer for the passengers. And some people
need to carry cargo.

I'm sure not everyone has a 'good' reason, but a fair number of people do make
a conscious choice.

~~~
brandon272
My assertion wasn't I assumed that people aren't making a conscious choice,
but rather that they aren't pouring over international carbon emissions data
as part of that decision making process.

As far as what families feel they "need", I think it represents a larger
societal issue around how we manage vehicle use and ownership. Most pickup
trucks I see on the road aren't hauling cargo. And most 7 or 8 passenger SUVs
have 1 or 2 people in them.

> Also, heavier vehicles are safer for the passengers.

Yes, for the passengers in that particular vehicle. More dangerous for others
on the road who can't afford or are unwilling to purchase a similarly sized
vehicle.

------
cannedslime
Summer of 2017 was dull and rainy, 2018 was scorching heat. So what? This
isn't a direct indication of climate change, we have had varied seasons since
forever. You didn't take the cool summer of 2017 as an example of debunked
climate change either... silly article.

------
dharma1
Anyone know where the highest res image data sets are available? I tried
looking on [https://www.copernicus.eu/en](https://www.copernicus.eu/en) but
it's a bit of a maze

~~~
zeptomu
Although it is not stated in the article, I suppose it is Sentinel2 (with
highest resolution 10m for bands Red, Green, Blue and Near Infrared).

The data is available for free and accessible via Copernicus or at major cloud
providers.

------
assblaster
"Heatwaves and little rain led to rarely seen forest fires in Sweden in July
2018."

Rarely seen, as in, seen before, presumably before the current level of
climate change.

I wish articles like this would give some context, such as rare: once in
10/100/1000/10000/100000 years?

Also, satellite images in the last several years can't be compared with
satellite images 100 years ago because man-made satellites didn't exist back
then. So this is more of a snapshot with little context.

How does this compare with the medieval warming period as far as impact on
agriculture?

~~~
Xylakant
> How does this compare with the medieval warming period as far as impact on
> agriculture?

It’s been so dry in germany that river levels sunk far enough to make so-
called hungerstones visible again. These mark historic low levels that are
associated with severe droughts and starvation. The fact that we’re not
starving is a testament to how much modern agriculture improved our
resilience, but there’s a limit to that.

[https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerstein_(Wasserstandsmar...](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungerstein_\(Wasserstandsmarkierung\))

~~~
yters
I've not understood how this demonstrates unprecedented climate change, since
presumably there is past precedent that laid the hungerstones in the first
place. This seems to demonstrate this level of warming happened before in the
medieval ages, before human caused global warming was possible. Wouldn't this
mean hungerstones count as evidence against human caused global warming?

~~~
peteradio
Depends, how many uncorrelated rare (in the no global climate change
hypothesis) events are simultaneously occurring?

~~~
yters
Yes, that's a good point. But, then what is our basis of comparison? When the
hungerstones were laid was there not similar warming going on elsewhere?
Without knowing this, it is hard to draw conclusions from the hungerstones.

------
minikites
Bitcoin has earned a lot of the blame here:

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywbbpm/bitcoin-
mi...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ywbbpm/bitcoin-mining-
electricity-consumption-ethereum-energy-climate-change)

>one transaction now uses as much energy as your house in a week

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/bitcoin-e...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/17/bitcoin-
electricity-usage-huge-climate-cryptocurrency)

>In November, the power consumed by the entire bitcoin network was estimated
to be higher than that of the Republic of Ireland. Since then, its demands
have only grown. It’s now on pace to use just over 42TWh of electricity in a
year, placing it ahead of New Zealand and Hungary and just behind Peru.

