Slashdot Mirror
Aral Sea May Recover; Dead Sea Needs a Lifeline
An anonymous reader writes "It's a tale of two seas. The drying up of the Aral Sea is considered one of the greatest environmental catastrophes in history, but the northern sector of the sea, at least, is showing signs of life. A dam completed in 2005 has increased the North Aral's span by 20 percent, and birds, fish, and people are all returning to the area. Meanwhile, the Dead Sea is still in the midst of precipitous decline, since too much water is being drawn out of the Jordan River for thirsty populations and crops. To keep the sea from shrinking more, scientists are pushing an ambitious scheme called the 'Red-Dead conduit,' which would channel huge amounts of water from the Red Sea to the Dead Sea. However, the environmental consequences of such a project may be troubling."
Yes, yes... lets spend money pumping water into something called "The Dead Sea".
Or we could have a brand new salt flats area for people to try driving really fast.
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
You can build a desalination plant and use the dead sea as a power source..Sounds wierd but is completely possible using new technology. Part of that plan would be to pipe seawater to the dead sea, over a stretch of about 30 miles. Want to know more? Contact me.
They sound like a bunch of Rockstars to me...
The Aral Sea is a horrifying and very visible example of the scale of what humans can do when their policies end up destroying the environment. A major lake, once the fourth largest in the world, reduced to almost nothingness in just a few decades. Unlikely to ever fully recover.
While I remain skeptical (but not outright dismissive) of many of the claims of the environmental movement, particularly the global warming and carbon footprint stuff, it's stuff like this that really makes me worried. If on a small scale people can do this, I really do worry what might happen on a larger scale.
Saying that the Aral Sea might "recover" is slightly misleading. The North Aral Sea is about 5% of the size of the Aral Sea as a whole. It's like saying that the whole of the US sank into the ocean except for Wyoming and Utah, but it might recover.
The Dead Sea is of great economic importance to Israel. Tourism, sale of products containing the salt or mud of the dead sea all bring money into a country with almost zero natural resources. But, this is a problem that comes not just from the using of the Jordan river, but a number of other rivers as well- Ein Gedi, a freshwater spring isn't far away from the Dead Sea and its water is used as drinking water (And a popular bottled water!) inside Israel. All the 'sweet water' has been diverted in Israel, as it has in most desert places. As a result, only salty water is being diverted to the Dead Sea. This means, of course, that the sea is shrinking. The Canal from the red sea is not new- I've heard talk of that since 2006, at least, when I was in Israel last. Israel, however, has some of the brightest minds in the world. I'm hoping they'll come up with a great way to make this work.
Your lack of perspective is hardly the article's failure.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Your lack of perspective is hardly the article's failure.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' - Mao Tse-tung
While I remain skeptical (but not outright dismissive) of many of the claims of the environmental movement, particularly the global warming and carbon footprint stuff, it's stuff like this that really makes me worried. If on a small scale people can do this, I really do worry what might happen on a larger scale.
Right, think about it a bit more: some people's actions over one region can dry up a major lake because these people need the water for their well-being. Now, imagine what the entire humankind can do for our well-being, which requires releasing gases into the atmosphere in amounts that haven't been present there for millennia.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
In fairness, you did't even need to comment on this article. Please do us all a favor and return to your NASCAR broadcasts.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
The Israelis and Jordanians should flood the whole area that is below sea level (hundreds of square kilometers). That way they can have a port at the Jordanian capital and the rainfall in the area will improve.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I've thought about it, and I'm OK with it.
What does all that water do for me (the armchair antagonist) sitting in a big hole in the ground called the Aral Sea or the Dead Sea, when it could be providing me with fresh crops, healthier livestock, clean drinking water, and high-tech factories?
[Disclaimer: I live near enough to the Great Lakes in the US that I should really give a shit about both them and other similar things, but I just simply don't. I see them all as resources.]
Kid-proof tablet..
Well, all that water used to provide high quality fish protein for you, before it dried up. Now the rotten hulks of your fishing boats are decaying in a desert. It used to provide a decent climate for your crops, while now there are dust storms covering a land below which the water table is rapidly sinking. You are right in viewing the lakes as resources, and the Aral lake is a prime example how to squander such a resource for very little short-term gain.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
Just stop messing with it for a couple of centuries and it will recover.
The Dead Sea is being ruined because people divert water from its natural inflows for agricultural use. Since they are destroying it, let them pay for fixing it.
A large contribution to drying of Aral Sea is that water which "should" get to it is used in an incredibly wasteful manner - the irrigation systems are in horrible condition, for example. Plus you know, drying of Aral exposed all the toxic stuff we usually dump into water (and which is relativelly stable and harmless in the bottom mud or dissolved in large quantity of water) to the work of wind; dust storms there are toxic.
Oh well, just an "unintended consequence" of progress, like with global warming. Here, similarly to irrigation systems mentioned, we could be much more effective too; and think about it...look around you - how much stuff in the room you're in comes at least partially from oil (in my room, virtually everything...); oil is an insanely valuable resource. And what we do with most of it? Burn it!
One that hath name thou can not otter
Throughout the history of the world seas have dried up. Watch any nature documentary, particularly the ones touching on geology and you can't seem to go 5 minutes without someone saying something about some place being a dried up seabed.
This video shows the Aral sea disappearing. This blog has photos from the site as it was in 2008.
You can't handle the truth.
The people who pointed out that the Aral Sea was headed for a disaster were dismissed as fear-mongers and chicken littles at the time. Given that the environmental movement was proven to be correct then, why dismiss it now?
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Bringing water from the Red Sea will only serve to increase the salt levels of the Dead Sea. Remember, the Dead Sea is normally only fed from 'fresh water' sources. Feeding this evaporative basin with salt waters will only dramatically INCREASE salt levels. It would be better to draw waters from the north or north-eastern sources. However, the best solution for this problem would be better conservation of the exist water. Sadly, the likely scenario that will 'fix' this problem will be increased violence in the region and a reduction of population. Iran will likely use attacks against Israel to include statements like: 'Doing our part to fix the Dead Sea problem.' Sometimes environmental engineering chases stupidity with stupidity.
Because the self appointed "leaders of the movement" are hypocritical bastards? Take Al Gore, Mr "Inconvenient Truth" himself. His fat ass goes puttering around on his own personal LEAR JET blowing through carbon like David Crosby blows through coke, then he has the 50 pound brass plated balls to say he is "carbon neutral" because he pays his OWN COMPANY for "carbon credits" which of course he makes massive profits off of. With leaders like that, who needs enemies? Their own hypocrisy is so thick it would choke a Lama!
Now it would be different if the green movement told Al Gore, who BTW if he gets carbon credits passed will become a carbon billionaire overnight (talk about a conflict of interest!) and instead replaced him with someone like Ed Begley,Jr who actually walks the walk and aren't jumping on the green movement just to line their pockets with other people's money.
If there is one thing folks hate, it is a hypocrite and a scammer, and right now Al Gore and the other greenies come off about as trustworthy as used car salesmen. Sure there are plenty of those on the other side trying to make all man made impact on the earth look like bullshit, but do you really need to make it easier for them by having clowns like Al Gore, whose pushing for a market that will be ripe for abuse and fraud, just makes the whole environmental movement look like another scam?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You know, if you're a Cornhuskers fan.
While I remain skeptical (but not outright dismissive) of many of the claims of the environmental movement, particularly the global warming and carbon footprint stuff, it's stuff like this that really makes me worried.
What is it that makes you skeptical of global warming, but not skeptical of this? Is it merely the fact that this disaster has already happened and is completely undeniable, but that the global warming disaster is merely predicted to occur based on well established theory?
If you wait until there's undeniable proof, it's already too late. Honestly, what would it take to convince you we need to take global warming seriously and act before the disaster unfolds?
AccountKiller
Only for some interpretations of credible, all of which are politically based. There are questions about the size of the anthropogenic component, and significant questions about future consequences, but there are no serious scientific disputes about the existence of AGW.
Please don't lump an obvious consequence of man's actions with one which is still in dispute. Anthropogenic global warming has not been established as a credible theory.
"Global warming" is an unfortunately popularized term, which is prone to misinterpretation so as to breed mistrust in general public. The only remaining "dispute" about anthropogenic climate change is in the heads of the deniers, nodding to each other on internet forums and in media.
And hey, the shrinkage of Aral Sea was probably still "in dispute" (especially with the region's cotton elites) by the time it was too late to avert the disaster.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
It is a devious tactic to attempt to discredit people who understand statistics well enough to ask valid and as yet unanswered questions about the data and models used by those who support the anthropogenic climate change theory by lumping them in with people who have their heads up their asses. I believe that some portion of the current climate change is in fact anthropogenic, but I do not believe that any of the current models have established that. Happening to be right and having a proper model are two different things - a clock that is stopped is right twice a day, but I would not rely upon it to tell me the time.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
This is a bit akin to saying.
"I have proof God doesn't exist. See, his priests are assholes! That proves it!"
While you might be right about Al Gore, it doesn't make the initial claim any less probable.
Their own hypocrisy is so thick it would choke a Lama!
So, you state that you have no evidence at all that he's incorrect at all, but that because his personal life is deemed by you to be hypocritical, he must be wrong? And anyway, he's a leader of the movement because people like you declare he is so that you can attack him personally. A spokesman (self appointed and visible because he's a public figure who is well funded, not some elected spokesman) who everyone who hates the environment clings to, declares to be "bad" (the reasons vary, but the hypocrisy you mentioned is on the list), then they dismisses the "movement" because of it.
Learn to love Alaska
It is a devious tactic to attempt to discredit people who understand statistics well enough to ask valid and as yet unanswered questions about the data and models used by those who support the anthropogenic climate change theory by lumping them in with people who have their heads up their asses.
When they are indistinguishable, why is that devious? A "real scientist" would say something like "the preponderance of the evidence points to it, so we should act like it's the Truth until proven otherwise." Then work to clarify points they have questions about.
"We can't be sure, so we should act like it's false" is worthy of ridicule and is unrelated to whether it's a well founded objection to some statistical questions or because they gain materially from the raping of the environment, or just hate the environment.
I believe that some portion of the current climate change is in fact anthropogenic, but I do not believe that any of the current models have established that. Happening to be right and having a proper model are two different things - a clock that is stopped is right twice a day, but I would not rely upon it to tell me the time.
They probably didn't have "proof" the lake was disappearing until it was mostly gone. At that point, many people think that there's nothing that could be done to get it back. That's similar to many environmental issues. The "proof" is the irreversible loss of some part of the environment. Since it looks like AGW is more likely than not, working against it seems like working towards the extinction of the human race, as that is what it likely takes for "proof" in this, and there are plenty asking for "proof" before acting. That you claim to understand statistics, yet hold the views that are inconsistent with statistics (probability) and science. Just as a question, how many people have done a study that shows that AGW is impossible or that we are cooling, or that we are warming because of other factors (with those factors identified)? I've seen one or two that indicate we should go back to cooling in a few years because of sun activity. Other than that, the anti-AGW group has put out nothing other than hatchet jobs. So, when all the evidence points to one and only one conclusion, and the well-funded opposition can't find any other explanation, that seems like overwhelming evidence. What more do you need?
Learn to love Alaska
Oh well, just an "unintended consequence" of progress, like with global warming. !
Please don't lump an obvious consequence of man's actions with one which is still in dispute. Anthropogenic global warming has not been established as a credible theory.
Neither has anthropogenic drying up of Aral sea been proven. It could be just natural change that has nothing to do with human re-routing the water a bit on its way to the Aral... The water level there has changed previously, and it will change again, changes are part of the natural cycles of our planet. Just because it used to be in a communist country doesn't automatically mean any apparent "destruction" (which really is just change, not "destruction") was caused by the commies.
</sarcasm>
It is a devious tactic to attempt to discredit people
What, a term change made in response to uneducated confusion?
who understand statistics well enough to ask valid and as yet unanswered questions
Could you cite some examples? I'd appreciate if you spend a couple of minutes googling for an explanation why the people who you think "understand statistics" (is this the only necessary qualification, BTW?) actually don't know what are they talking about, as well as for answers to their ill-informed questions. Some people still point at surfacestations.org or similar worn tripe as The Holy Truth That Exposes Evil Conspiracy of Climate Scientists. Don't be that gullible.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
I guess it's the whole hysterical global warming contingent, that likes to blame everything on global warming. Too many hurricanes? Global warming. Too few hurricanes? Global warming. Heat wave? Global warming. Cold snap? Global warming.
Plus, many actual environmentalists I've met tend to be trying to use it as a cover for some sort of Marxism, and generally appear to me, at least, favor words over action. That and what generally appears to be hypocrisy (Al Gore taking a private jet to a conference to warn about carbon emissions.)
So basically, environmentalists make me distrust environmentalism. It's a pretty terrible reason, I'll admit, but it happens. I imagine, similarly, there are a great many people more turned off of religion by fanatics and fundamentalists than by the actual doctrines.
Rock on!
Can we customize cars with rusty iron spikes and race around in crazy homemade armor to defend our city powered by pig offal?
Comment of the year
Two years ago, Lake Superior was at its lowest level since 1929 (IIRC). It came back some the following year, but this year I am told it is even below those 1929 levels.
I really hope people are on top of this! I know there are huge amounts of water being drained from Superior for human use.
First as for evidence....dude, if he gets carbon credits passed, the biggest fricking scam since Catholic indulgences, he will become an instant billionaire! can you say "conflict of interest" boys and girls? I think you can. If you want to cut down carbon, then pass laws that fine you if you go over x amount, and lower x per year. All carbon credits is is a tax scam. Companies will find all sorts of "creative accounting" ways to game that system, and leeches like Goldman Sachs will prey like vultures upon it.
As for why he is the leader of the green movement? Because any time someone starts talking about anything to do with carbon Al gets his fat ass in front of the camera and the greens don't say shit. He reminds me of another Al...Rev Al, who gets HIS fat ass in front of the camera if anyone says "black issue".
You want folks to take green seriously? Tell your Rev Al to GTFO when he waddles his fat, Lear Jet cruising ass in front of the damned camera! Hell his fucking house uses more juice than an entire fucking neighborhood man! If that ain't hypocrisy then we need to redefine the term! As long as Rev Al Gore is in front of the camera I wouldn't believe it if he said it was snowing if I was standing ass deep in it, and many folks feel the same way. But go ahead, keep Rev Al and make it easy for the other team, just like when rev Sharpton parks his ass in front of the camera folks automatically think "bullshit" and turn off, even if the issue is legit.
Whether you like it or not, appearances count. And having a Lear Jet cruising McMansion owning carbon scammer as the biggest spokesman for your cause? Hell the oil companies couldn't do any better if they picked the spokesman themselves!!!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
can you say "conflict of interest" boys and girls?
Sure. You attack the messenger, but never the message.
Learn to love Alaska
Hm, I guess it shows that I spent too much time last week reviewing my collection of postapocalyptica....
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I’m sorry. I don’t get really excited about microbes and brine shrimp. If you do NOTHING, they will become crunchy.
Dike off a square mile or two as a preserve.
In general solutions that pay for themselves work faster. Bringing water in from either the Red Sea or the Mediterranean can generate power twice — once by the elevation difference, and once by the dilution process. Sure, you’ll end up with a salinity gradient — less salty where the resalinization plant comes in.
Done right, it can be a source of water and power in a region that needs both. (There's a trade off - more fresh water produced, less power)
The only way we as a species can have zero impact is to all commit suicide. I suspect that many people would object. So we have to choose at any given time between workable alternatives.
30 years of watching catastrophists predict the End of Life As We Know It has convinced me that eco-systems are much more robust than previously thought:
Most impacts from serious oil spills vanish in a couple years. A decade brings fish back in the Aral Sea. Lake Erie is coming back to life. Polar bears that lived on baby seals are now eating bird eggs,
The big disruptions are ones when we move a pest from one habitat to another, and it takes a while for a new balance to be struck. We still finding the balance from having earthworms in North America, honey bees in North America. Dutch elm disease. White Pine Blister Rust.
Much of the time natural selection for 5-10 generations works out a resistant type. E.g. We’re starting to see resistant elms, resistant chestnuts.
Critters with short life cycles — microbes and brine shrimp and their ilk, will adapt to changing salinity fairly quickly.
Study the Dead Sea options carefully, yes. But this looks like a viable soltuion to me.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
Once again you are attempting to challenge my credibility by lumping me in with a bunch of idiot zealots. You are a zealot, though somewhat less misguided than those you attempt to associate me with. Zealots are the last people we should be listening to.
Don't be so gullible to believe that you are right because so many idiots disagree with you, that is like concluding the Soviet Union was good because it opposed Nazi Germany.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
I guess it's the whole hysterical global warming contingent, that likes to blame everything on global warming. Too many hurricanes? Global warming. Too few hurricanes? Global warming. Heat wave? Global warming. Cold snap? Global warming.
That's the media trying to sell some eyeballs. Over simplification, simple answers, and fear sells. It isn't science.
Plus, many actual environmentalists I've met tend to be trying to use it as a cover for some sort of Marxism, and generally appear to me, at least, favor words over action.
Democracy starts with words, and leads to action. What would you have people do? You can't really stop the whole population from burning coal to make power through the actions of a few people.
I imagine, similarly, there are a great many people more turned off of religion by fanatics and fundamentalists than by the actual doctrines.
This is true.. but it doesn't make you doubt that rape, murder, and theft are all wrong just because any sane religion opposes it, does it?
The truth is you don't need to listen to all the fanatics, politicians, talk show hosts, or newspapers. That's what science is for, to cut through all that shit and rely on the evidence. Do you really think the people against global warming don't have their own fanatics, politicians, talk show hosts, and newspapers trying to influence you their own way? The people who study global warming are in agreement as much as scientists agree about anything, that is that humans are causing the earth to get warmer by releasing greenhouse gasses. What's not agreed upon is how quickly, or how much.
AccountKiller
It's remarkable how asking for credible sources not only gets me labelled a "zealot", but also earns a Troll moderation. Way to go, "nerds".
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
name one impact of AGW that will lead to the extinction of the human species
Name one place in my post where I stated that it would lead to the extinction of the human species.
Learn to love Alaska
"working against it seems like working towards the extinction of the human race"
I understand the meaning of the word "seems", nevertheless the implication of that sentence fragment stands.