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.
THAT'S the band's name.
"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.
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.
>>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.
And also we're now going to blame ANY climate change on mankind, even if it happened in the past, and even though the earth's climate has been constantly changing for the past 5 billion years.
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.
Did it first.
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
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
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."