Slashdot Mirror
For the First Time On Record, Human-Caused Climate Change Has Rerouted an Entire River (washingtonpost.com)
A team of scientists on Monday documented what they're describing as the first case of large-scale river reorganization as a result of human-caused climate change (Editor's note: could be paywalled; alternative source). From a report: They found that in mid-2016, the retreat of a very large glacier in Canada's Yukon territory led to the rerouting of its vast stream of meltwater from one river system to another -- cutting down flow to the Yukon's largest lake, and channeling freshwater to the Pacific Ocean south of Alaska, rather than to the Bering Sea. The researchers dubbed the reorganization an act of "rapid river piracy," saying that such events had often occurred in the Earth's geologic past, but never before, to their knowledge, as a sudden present-day event. They also called it "geologically instantaneous." "The river wasn't what we had seen a few years ago. It was a faded version of its former self," lead study author Daniel Shugar of the University of Washington at Tacoma said of the Slims River, which lost much of its flow because of the glacial change. "It was barely flowing at all. Literally, every day, we could see the water level dropping, we could see sandbars popping out in the river."
Pass the popcorn!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Not rapid rivers
The Colorado and Brazos rivers joined into one raging river due to upstream flooding, changing the course of both rivers.
Not due to man made global warming. So yes it has happened in recent history.
THAT'S the band's name.
Offering eachother plausible scenarios where they need to do nothing feels so good!
"The researchers found only a minuscule probability that the retreat of Kaskawulsh glacier — which retracted by nearly half a mile from 1956 to 2007 — could have occurred in what they called a “constant climate.” They therefore inferred that the events in question could be attributed to human-caused climate change."
"The researchers found only a minuscule probability that the retreat of Kaskawulsh glacier — which retracted by nearly half a mile from 1956 to 2007 — could have occurred in what they called a “constant climate.” They therefore inferred that the events in question could be attributed to human-caused climate change."
So they think it's unlikely to have occurred in a "constant climate", and among the imaginable range of non-constant climates they hinted the events *could* be attributed to "human-caused climate change". (Whatever that exactly means, given that there are infinite causes of climate change, many of them significant.)
So, logically, WaPo titles the article "For the first time on record, human-caused climate change has rerouted an entire river." Good job, journalists.
It took 200 years but we finally managed to piss of mother nature! Now take your river and go home! ;)
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
So you're able to predict that people who don't agree with you will come here.
Does that somehow mean that you're right and they are not?
Nope.
These events are normally considered geologic hazards: earthquakes, landslides, floods, etc. These are hazards because of the impact they have on us and our way of life, same is considered with climate change, how much will this change impact us and are we okay with that. So the question is, how will this impact us and since it's up were people are not, nothing much will come from this other than more evidence there is a rapid change to the environment. We always need more data to improve our understanding, this gives us that.
Denier. No brain needed.
It's going to be raining . . . sheep.
Gimme a nice MLT—mutton, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomatoes are ripe.
Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
In many parts of the world from India and Bangladesh, Indonesia and South America, rivers changing course is a common occurrence and the residents there have learned to build their houses on stilts to avoid flooding. As silt builds up and dams the flow of part of a river on mostly flat terrain, the water will find a new path of least resistance to the sea.
Queue the idiots that put up straw men... Like you
Cue the morons who can't spell "cue." Buncha "loosers."
Did it first.
Thanks for proving once again that the real racists aren't white.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
Do you still see Brontosaurus' around today? Didn't think so. I can only conclude that those weren't on the Ark for whatever reason.
Rivers will naturally change course if they are not forced in to their old channels. How this escapes these people is beyond me. I'll grant all of our carbon release may be accelerating the natural heat and cool cycles the earth goes through. The problem is that they keep making claims about events that happen without human intervention for millennia.
But that wasn't "man-made climate change"...
Even if warming is part of a natural cycle, it does seem quite likely that man is exacerbating the situation with CO2 emissions and other pollution. If nothing else, if we could really run our societies without belching pollution into the atmosphere, it'd be the better alternative. I mean, pollution is just bad, m'kay?
So please don't call me a "denier". My issue is that few of the proposed "solutions" seem to be based on science. I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a cloak hiding the proposer's socialist SJW motives.
For example, the IPCC report on climate change...Let's see...it doesn't seem to be about the effect of climate on plants and animals (and humans). It does mention climatey things... It said that without action to address the problem, by the year 2100, hundreds of millions of people could be affected by coastal flooding and displaced due to land loss. "Impacts from recent extreme climatic events, such as heat waves, droughts, floods, and wildfires, show significant vulnerability and exposure of some ecosystems and many human systems to climate variability," the report warned.
But mainly, the IPCC report seems to be about poverty and income inequality and funding needed to address it.
The report also said climate change had the largest impact on people who are socially and economically marginalized. "Climate change will exacerbate poverty in low and lower-middle income countries, including high mountain states, countries at risk from sea-level rise, and countries with indigenous peoples, and create new poverty pockets in upper-middle to high-income countries in which inequality is increasing," [the report] said.
But funding needed to offset the impact of climate change is lacking, the report warned, saying developing countries would need between $70 billion to $100 billion a year to implement needed measures. And efforts to reduce the effects of climate change would only have a marginal effect on reducing poverty unless "structural inequalities are addressed and needs for equity among poor and nonpoor people are met."
It's not about climate change or environmentalism, it really hasn't been for a long time...it's about socialist economic policy--redistribution of wealth. The leaders of the movement readily admit as much.
(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War... First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Christiana Figueres, leader of the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change: “This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.”
Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S undersecretary of state for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister: “No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provides] the greatest chance to b
I'll keep it short, but have the people supporting this view heard of dams? Humans (and beavers) have been intentionally changing the course of rivers for millennia.
The world of achievement has always belonged to the optimist. -- J. Harold Wilkins
Too Damn Big! Ive always wanted a Brontosaurus as a pet.. I can name him Tiny!
No, the river course was changed by glacial melting and retreat.
The cause of that was clearly warming.
The cause of that is still open for debate. Was it exacerbated or caused by human activity - your answer, and the certainty with which you issue it depends on whether you're a member of the AGW secular religion.
-Styopa
Is this supposed to be a big deal simply because it's due to climate change? Back in 1900 the flow of the Chicago River was intentionally reversed!
Any you know poster is not white, how?
E.g.,
"Between approximately 11,100 and 10,900 years ago, Lake Agassiz’s north and northeastern shores consisted of a continuous cliff of ice, but its eastern and western shores formed what geologists refer to as the “Campbell Beach.” This extensive sand and gravel ridge, most evident in south-western Manitoba, is possibly the most eloquent testimony to the existence of this once-great lake. Shortly thereafter, a new outlet through the ice opened into the Lake Superior basin, thus allowing Agassiz to drain in that direction. A glacial readvance subsequently blocked this outlet and the lake rose to the Campbell Beach once again. This stage too was relatively short-lived; some 9500 years ago the eastern outlet re-opened and Agassiz drained rapidly—probably with catastrophic results. As much as 3,000 cubic kilometers of water (seven times the volume of Lake Erie) coursed into the Superior Basin in just a few weeks."
http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/mb_h...
I see the occasional discussion of carbon sequestration and that sort of thing, but far more often the "solution" is just a cloak hiding the proposer's socialist SJW motives.
Why are you making things up? Most of the solutions being proposed have nothing to do with socialism. By far the most popular proposal among economists is a carbon tax, which is about as non-political and pro-market as you could ask for. Make people pay for the damage they do to the environment, then let the market figure out the best way to deal with it. Other popular proposals include things like raising the fuel efficiency standards for cars, subsidizing renewable energy, increased funding for energy research, etc. If you think those are socialism, you have a strange idea of what the word means.
But instead you just give quotes from a bunch of people I've never heard of with titles like "former leader of the Communist Party USA" and "climate justice campaigner". Couldn't you have quoted present day, mainstream political figures instead? Of course not, because they don't believe those things. But since mainstream politicians aren't socialists, instead you quote a bunch of socialists, pretend they reflect the views of mainstream politicians, and then claim this discredits anyone who actually wants to do something about climate change.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
For the millionth time on record, entities abuse the language of science to make unscientific claims to push a political agenda. The good news is this story can serve as a self assessment. If you find it remotely plausible that through science we have found evidence of this so compelling to overcome alternative explanations beyond tolerable error, then you now know you do not understand science. Metaknowledge is difficult to obtain, so this really is a uniquely valuable opportunity.
Except the evidence says exactly the opposite. Last time the Earth had over 400 ppm CO2 was 4.5 million years ago - and temperatures then were 4-5 degrees C higher than today (10 degrees C higher at the poles). Considering that CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for many decades (some of it for centuries), and that we've only seen ~1 degree of warming so far, it's far more likely that 80% of the warming is yet to come (even if we stop excess emissions today).
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Cue the sack.
And as an aggravating factor, the sun is warmer now than it was 4.5 million years ago. So if we reach the same CO2 emissions as 4.5 million years ago, we will have more warming.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Well I've just solved Climate Change. Apparently all we have to do is sue it into oblivion, that'll do the trick!