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."

Comments

Oh, this is going to be great

[Opportunist]

Pass the popcorn!

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[CrimsonAvenger]

Addendum to my last:

Note that I live near the Mississippi River, which, until it was leveed all to hell-and-gone, routinely shifted its channel from year to year. So the notion of a river rerouting itself isn't terribly surprising to me, nor is it really that big a deal, unless it reroutes itself over someone's house or a town (which the Mississippi used to do from time to time in the 19th Century).

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[mi]

Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[QuasiEvil]

Nah, because through the power of bigger engineering, we can put the bastard back. The Miss would have jumped over to the Atchafalaya channel years ago if it wasn't for engineering intervention.

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[Rei]

Here in Iceland we got a new highest waterfall out of the deal. Our highest used to be Glymur, but the glacier Morsárjökull receded up a cliff and in its place left a series of waterfalls that are higher than Glymur (now called Morsárfossar).

Glymur is prettier though. Morsárfossar was prettier partially glaciated, like the cliffs to the right still are.

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[Gadget_Guy]

Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?

You can at least start with the IPCC report for a round-up of the science, then look at the scientific journals that have been published since then for any updates that have been made.

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[Anonymous Coward]

With claims it's "human-caused" without any scientific basis. And all these smart people lauding this shit can't answer how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%? I'm not denying climate change, hell, i'm not denying that it's in part human cause... but screaming that human-caused climate change rerouted a river is a fucking hyperbole.

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[Joce640k]

Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?

It's not like you intend to read it.

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[jandersen]

Note that I live near the Mississippi River, which, until it was leveed all to hell-and-gone, routinely shifted its channel from year to year. So the notion of a river rerouting itself isn't terribly surprising to me, nor is it really that big a deal, unless it reroutes itself over someone's house or a town (which the Mississippi used to do from time to time in the 19th Century).

Sure, but this is well known from rivers that run over a plain - they tend to meander, silt builds up etc. The effect is rather more dramatic when the source dries up or goes to another river. It is the same, basic processes that are behind, but whereas the meandering river phenomenon is common, the interesting thing about this case is that it can be attributed directly to climate change: the glacier has melted away to such a degree that it now drains away through an entirely different channel. It would be great if people would not be so dismissive about these things - the scientists that bring these things up don't do so in order to get high approval rating on social media; they aren't airheaded celebrities craving attention; they point out observations that they think are potentially important, and which they suggest you should have a look at. It may feel great saying stuff like 'Yeah, shit happens; so what?" - right until the day when shit happens to you, particularly if you could have done something about it if only you could have been bothered.

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[KeensMustard]

Good or bad, what proof is there, this is indeed "human-caused"?

Whose fault is it if you are ignorant of the basic science of climate?

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[Truth_Quark]

Well:
1) If you measure all the sources of radiative forcing, you see that the natural ones are pretty much negligible with respect to the current warming, where as the "human-caused" ones are large.

2) There have been papers that split the warming into the warming that would have happened from natural forcing, and that which would have happened from anthropogenic forcing. ((paper). Satisfyingly, the warming that has happened from the sum of the forcings, is approximately the sum of the warmings from each forcing. So it's nice and additive, therefore statements like "x% of the warming of the past y years is anthropogenic" are meaningful. Such as "80% of the warming of the past 100 years is anthropogenic" or "110% of the warming of the past 50 years is anthropogenic".

Re:Oh, this is going to be great

[Truth_Quark]

With claims it's "human-caused" without any scientific basis.

No, showing the reasoning with references to the hundreds of peer reviewed scholarly papers that provide the basis for that reasoning is with scientific basis.

"Without scientific basis" means without reference to the scholarly literature, and generally also without sound reasoning or true axioms.

And all these smart people lauding this shit can't answer how much of it is human contribution. Is it 5%? 100%?

As of 2000 it's about 80% of the past 100 years, and about 110% of the past 50 years.

I'm not denying climate change, hell, i'm not denying that it's in part human cause... but screaming that human-caused climate change rerouted a river is a fucking hyperbole.

The current climate change is human caused. That's not hyperbole. It's certainly not fucking hyperbole. And calling something fucking hyperbole without any scientific basis is ironic considering how your post began.

Chain of conclusions

[iMadeGhostzilla]

"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.

Re:Chain of conclusions

[Gravis Zero]

Also I wonder how on-clock we believe these cycles have been coming in the past. Have they all been well within that 15% estimated drift of today? 15% doesn't sound like much for a system so incredibly complex. I may be wrong.

Sounds like you don't really know just how fucked thing have become. Using ice core samples, they were able to calculate how much atmospheric CO2 there was in the past. Here's a graph of it including our really fucked present.

Re:Chain of conclusions

[Namarrgon]

Also:
- Watch sea levels rise
- Watch unprecedented king tides and storm surges destroy billions in coastal property
- Watch millions of coastal & river delta farmers lose their farms due to salt
- Watch global threat levels rise from increased resource conflicts
- Watch temperatures rise
- Watch tropical diseases spread to new areas
- Watch unique and valuable reefs bleach and die
- Watch billions of tourism dollars disappear
- Watch rainfall patterns change drastically
- Watch farmers try to cope with drought & floods like they've never seen before
- Watch rising ocean acidification attack crucial food-web ecosystems
- Watch rising risks of runaway feedback from e.g. Siberian methane traps
- Watch deniers eventually change their tune to "oh well, it's too late to do anything now"

Re:In 1913

[Koby77]

>>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.

Stilt houses on Deltas and flood plains

[peterofoz]

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.