Slashdot Mirror
Heavier Rainfall Will Increase Water Pollution In the Future (nationalgeographic.com)
An anonymous reader shares a report from National Geographic: If climate change continues to progress, increased precipitation could mean detrimental outcomes for water quality in the United States, a major new study warns. An intensifying water cycle can substantially overload waterways with excess nitrogen runoff -- which could near 20 percent by 2100 -- and increase the likelihood of events that severely impair water quality, according to a new study published by Science. When rainfall washes nitrogen and phosphorus from human activities like agriculture and fossil fuel combustion into rivers and lakes, those waterways are overloaded with nutrients, and a phenomenon called "eutrophication" occurs. This can be dangerous for both people and animals. Toxic algal blooms can develop, as well as harmful low-oxygen dead zones known as hypoxia, which can cause negative impacts on human health, aquatic ecosystems, and the economy. In the new study, researchers predict how climate change might increase eutrophication and threats to water resources by using projections from 21 different climate models, each of which was run for three climate scenarios and two different time periods (near future, 2031-2060, and far-future, 2071-2100).
Why limit die-offs, right? That's just the free market of the ocean.
With runoff from farming in all the surrounding countries and a very small connection to the Atlantic the Baltic sea is suffering severely from this problem.
When it is blowing from the east or southeast the coast up to Stockholm is covered in algea.
After all something like 78% of the air we breathe is nitrogen.
Let's pray for a drought in California.
Irresponsible disclosure is responsible
I'm confused.
and how much will it cost?
But she hears only whispers of some quiet conversation
She's coming in, 12:30 flight
The moonlit wings reflect the stars that guide me towards salvation
I stopped an old man along the way
Hoping to find some long forgotten words or ancient melodies
He turned to me as if to say, "Hurry boy, it's waiting there for you"
It's gonna take a lot to take me away from you
There's nothing that a hundred men or more could ever do
I bless the RAINS down in AAAAAAfrica
Gonna take some time to do the things we never had
WHut Whut
Ima mayke it rayne inna cuh-luhhhb
Whut Whut
Ima mayke it rayne inna cuh-luhhhb
It seems I read a couple of years back that climate scientist saying due to climate change we were going to have a drought that lasted 100 years. Furthermore, if I recall right they were predicting the end of farming as we know it...
Did I miss something, or are things being turned on their head?
Phosphates have already been banned in dishwasher detergents since 2010 (that's why your glasses have been getting so cloudy and scale is building up), and phosphates aren't in hand soap and shampoo. And high phosphate fertilizer is already being banned in the US. So there isn't additional phosphates going into the water system beyond today's rates.
So basically, global warming is no longer causing droughts, but now 20% more rain. Again, it all points to conditions for increased vegetative growth, which means higher food stocks and more CO2 processing. Sounds great to me!
huh? Climate change = Increased rainfall = washed out nitrogen from human activities? Hum. Seems to me the increased human activities = the increased nitrogen, not the increased precipitation from climate change. Sometimes I wonder if there is logic in science or humans at all. Maybe we need some Vulcans on this planet to guide our science?
Increased precipitation would be great. I look forward to a rainy future.
But only this one. The increase in rain is real starting around 2005. I don't buy the Global Warming Claim that it's CO2 caused because both the Pan Evaporation Rate and the Precipitation measurements by weather stations agree that it started only after 2005. The issue is a bit more concerning when you're no longer blind to the Global Warming Hype Train. I'd love to publish the facts on it too but Eleven Hundred Dollars to publish seven pages and some graphs is a bit outside of my price range.
Great news. Nitrates, water, and CO2 will create verdant deserts. Arable land will increase, and fewer people will starve. Most of America will become a lush tropical paradise. The Sahara will become the breadbasket of Africa. More WINNING!
This is just a computer model and I question its validity. It doesn't make sense with what I know of the real world.
Increased nitrate runoff means that the waterways get choked with nitrates and algae growing so fast that it created an anaerobic environment when it dies. This is the reverse of what you were thinking it said.
Ah climate change, the metaphysical mechanism that can be blamed for every possible outcome. Droughts, Floods, higher temperatures, lower temperatures More hurricanes. fewer hurricanes. So long as they can write a panicky headline about it, it'll get published.
Have gnu, will travel.
For those who are merely confused and ignorant, yet not fully deprived of intellectual honesty or interest in learning, here are two excerpts from Wikipedia that may help:
“Assuming high growth in GHG emissions (IPCC scenario RCP8.5), presently dry regions may be affected by an increase in the risk of drought and reductions in soil moisture. Over most of the mid-latitude land masses and wet tropical regions, extreme precipitation events will very likely become more intense and frequent.” (in “Effects of global warming”).
“The warmer atmospheric temperatures observed over the past decades are expected to lead to a more vigorous hydrological cycle, including more extreme rainfall events. Erosion and soil degradation is more likely to occur.” (in “Climate change and agriculture”).
That's 80+ years from now, in other words we have time.
I hear that the sea levels are rising.... at about a foot per century. We can adjust to that without getting all in a panic.
I've been told that the corn belt is moving north. Unless this happens in the span of a single growing season then I find it hard to get worked up about this. Farmers already rotate crops for reasons of keeping soil in good shape. If over a few decades the rotation of crops needs adjusting then they'll figure it out.
Rain this, droughts that, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blah, blah blah. We got this figured out.
We've all been hearing this panic for decades now. All we are doing is getting the next generation stressed out over nothing. They are getting bombarded with climate change disasters in movies, cartoons, in the news, and on and on. Kids can't get away from this but when they grow up and have to deal with this on their own they will realize like I did that this is a big nothing.
A quick read of the comments on this article so far tells me that I'm not alone in how I feel on this. The climate change alarmists have been pushing the panic button so often for so long, with nothing to really show for it, that no one pays attention any more.
Here's the problem now. If this climate change that is coming is in fact a real problem then we're all screwed anyway because no one listens any more. Because the climate change alarmists would not police themselves and point out bad science when it came up no one can tell what is true any more.
Again, 80 years, we have time.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
No, that you thought world-wide weather events would result shows you should stop pretending you thought you knew what anything meant.
How do you even put your shoes on in the morning without falling over and hitting your head?!
According to the DNC chairman there is no need to worry. The simple fix is to increase everyone's taxes, institute more regulatory burdens, restrict freedoms, and import more Muslims. These are the reasons that I always vote Democrat.
Torrential rains in Japan at historic levels caused landslides destroyed homes and farms. Thousands evacuated from homes. Meanwhile in Tokyo drainage systems are being upgraded. Flooding nothing new but prior mitigation efforts still fall short sometimes. Trying to keep up with nature requires prioritizing. Bet Tepco wishes it prioritized that Higher Fukushima wall , oh well hindsight.
I thought "climate change" was supposed to cause worldwide droughts? If you can imagine just any fear you want as being the result of "climate change", then the entire concept becomes meaningless.
Of course, it's meaningless to begin with. "Change" is what the climate DOES, always has, always will. The entire Gore-ful panic is designed to separate the people from their money and to allow the politicians to fun things forever.
And how is it that you know that climate has changed in the past. Do you really believe the scientists who told you this? They are the same scientists who you don't believe when they tell you that AGW is a problem. Are you just going to cherry pick based on what you want to believe?
I thought "climate change" was supposed to cause worldwide droughts? If you can imagine just any fear you want as being the result of "climate change", then the entire concept becomes meaningless.
The term "climate change" is a kind of short-hand, which refers to the changes that are caused by human activities on top of natural climate variation. The one thing that more than anything else defines man-made climate change is the increased energy retention in the atmosphere, that we can measure as an increase in the average temperature across the whole planet and smoothed out over a relatively long period of time, which is above what we would have expected to find from natural causes. But locally, on a day to day basis, there will be big variations in temperature, and secondarily in air pressure, wind speed, humidity, precipitation etc - the tendency is to make these variations stronger, so droughts may become worse, rainfall may become heavier, storms more violent, heatwaves hotter and more frequent, and yes, you will in places see much more snow and more severe cold snaps.
There is an experiment that I think most will have seen in school at some point, which explains a lot about this: You take a large glass tank with water, place a Bunsen burner under it, and drop a crystal of some water soluble colour over the flame; what you see is the colour rising up, then curling back down - ie turbulence. If you measure the temperature in different places, you will probably get high readings in the column over the flame, but low readings in an area around the flame, where colder water is being sucked in - and high readings near the top edges as well; this also happens to our atmosphere: the flame is hot near equator, the air rises and blows up to the polar regions, where it is sucked down, because cold air is suck in near the ground at the equator. One of the major differences is that the atmosphere is a very thin layer: 10 miles deep, spread oout over a circumference of 25000 miles, which would correspond to the glass tank in your school laboratory being 10 cm high and 250 m wide, which means that any turbulence becomes much more localised, which translates into the much more chaotic system that is our weather.
So quite how you claim it is the fertiliser not the rainfall that is a problem is just a case of your stupidity at work, isn't it?
Because "we have time to do nothing and wait until it gets worse" is not sane, whilst "We have time to do something about it" means you have to do something about it, which you are in deep denial of having to do.
Without poisoning lakes and rivers.
Why don't you just empty the sewer upstream of where you drink also.
You're not doing yourself any favors by using "short-hand" - Using "Climate change" in place of "Man Made Climate change" defeats your statement.
Typically this comes in the way of making a statement that appears to say that climate is not supposed to change if things were normal.
Of course it is supposed to change. It's been getting warmer since the end of the last ice age.
So What is normal ? What is the percentage of increased stored heat above that normal? What is the percentage of increased stored heat above that normal that is man made?
Consensus indeed.
Let alone that science isn't done by consensus, It's done by repeatable testing and validation of theory.
I thought "climate change" was supposed to cause worldwide droughts? If you can imagine just any fear you want as being the result of "climate change", then the entire concept becomes meaningless.
Of course, it's meaningless to begin with. "Change" is what the climate DOES, always has, always will. The entire Gore-ful panic is designed to separate the people from their money and to allow the politicians to fun things forever.
And how is it that you know that climate has changed in the past. Do you really believe the scientists who told you this? They are the same scientists who you don't believe when they tell you that AGW is a problem. Are you just going to cherry pick based on what you want to believe?
When someone says 'according to my research, X seems to be the case', people will generally say, meh, ok.
When someone says 'X is the case and therefore everyone must do Y' people get very suspicious, especially when Y is something that enriches the speaker at the expense of the audience.
Add in bits like 'or humanity is domed' or 'even if I am wrong the risk is too great to ignore' and you lose even more credibility. Spokespeople who do not practice what they preach will quickly show any cause to be a scam, even if it is not(or not entirely).
If enough time passes that some of those dooms-day predictions turn out to be provably false, then you lose even more credibility.
Unfortunately, even if AGW turns out to be an immediate existential threat to humanity, the politicians and other shysters have driven it's credibility so far underground that the name had to be changed twice(global cooling -> global warming -> climate change). And the continued exaggerations and FUD are taking it past the point where for many people, an unwashed hobo yelling about martians on a street corner while wearing a placard saying 'the end is near' is more credible.
TL;DR:
The scientists with no vested interest in what we believe are much more credible than the people who try to control others based on FUD, even if that FUD may have some scientific basis behind parts of it. (and that FUD makes any real science related to it much harder to believe)
It's all global warming, regardless of whatever it is and it's all bad. Even if it is something that seems good like less drought.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Is every system component some pilgrim dislikes then labeled as pollution ? Something to be feared and eliminated? What about snarking dykes and progressive slut-bitches? Certainly those two stains muddy-the-waters ...
This does not stop the problem of not going Green, but.. They could dig holes for lakes that would collect the excess rainfall, and meter it back out of the lake as things dry up. No more houses on low lying land - or you could elevate the houses on hills - or even on flooding planes make houseboats, disguised as houses, but float in emergencies.
Actually, it's a pretty convenient theory.
If global warming is a thing, either it will get wetter or it will get drier.
If it gets drier, of course drought, sky falling, etc as per the news in California for the last couple of years.
If it gets wetter, as this article asserts, it will be terrible for all sorts of reasons.
It's a perfect theory: no matter what happens, it can be interpreted to be bad, and it's humans' fault.
It used to be that the weather just changed, and we didn't try to blame anyone for it.
-Styopa
Nice prediction for 2100, if the human race even makes it that far. The planet will probably be so over populated by then, that is going to be the least of our worries.
Ah cynicism, the metaphysical mechanism that can be used to mask ignorance for every possible outcome.
harmful low-oxygen dead zones known as hypoxia
I know Slashdot is full enough of pedants, but hypoxia is a name for the phenomenon/condition - not the name of the place. You could call it a hypoxic zone. You could call the state of the area hypoxia. You can't call the place hypoxia.
I don't know anyone that would not admit that pollution is a problem. Plastic waste from _all_over making up huge masses in the oceans is an easy example. TFA and AGW proponents both have the same problem, which is complaining about the wrong stuff. Nitrogen is fertilizer for plants, and CO2 is converted by plants into O2. If those two things are really a concern, simply allowing plants to grow is the best possible answer. Do away with Nitrogen or CO2, and all the plants die. With them, goes the humans and everything else.
We don't see any reasonable presentation of the problems, and the solutions presented are to simply get rich scams for the wealthy as they spread around the wealth of the middle class to make all the peons poor. Win-win for those few, and a big middle finger to the rest of humanity.
Looking at your list, amazing that you put leaded gasoline and ozone into your list. CFCs were banned in the 70s because it was found to be harmful, and SCIENCE was able to prove it. Lead is harmful to humans and causes all kinds of problems both physically and mentally. Again, SCIENCE was able to prove it. We not only banned leaded gasoline, but leaded paint, lead pencils, and lead plumbing. People overall didn't have any problem with the solution, which was an outright ban.
These claims of CO2 BAD! and Nitrogen BAD! are false claims, easily provable by SCIENCE. Get the claim right, and people would listen. Get the right solution, and people will listen. "GIVE DE GUBMT MONEY!" is NOT a solution!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Yeah, how many different things can happen in the earth's environment at one time anyway?
http://www.channel3000.com/new...
First, it is near certain that gas/diesel will be nearly, if not fully, done being used for transportation. By 2040, if not closer to 2035, the majority of vehicles will be electric, though it is possible that later on, something like H2 could take over for some vehicles.
Secondly, Farming is undergoing MASSIVE changes. by 2050, if not sooner, most of it will not only be automated, but possible green-housed. Regardless, we will no longer see the massive spraying of fields that we see today. Instead, it will be DIRECTLY applied to the plant. That will include fertilizers as well as pesticides. The nice thing is that it will be a FRACTION of the amount that we currently use.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
1. Scientists (especially those not in cognitive sciences) don't know how to convince people to do things. Even those that do know how to, need not be skilled in doing it - like the aspects of thinking on one's feet, acting, emoting, judging the audience's emotions and reacting quickly to them etc.
False, and even a cursory study of history proves you false. "Science" gets funding to come to certain conclusions all the time. "Scientists" write extensively on the dilemmas they face when their morality gets challenged by the "Science" they are paid to do. "Scientists" are not the majority of people out there selling political agendas with said "Science". Examples are so easy to find that any citation request will be met with riducule!
2. Everyone need not know / do everything. There is a reason division of labour has helped mankind greatly.
So no, scientists do not need to do a better job of calling out those .... They just need to publish papers and critique other papers.
When the solution presented to the masses is "GIVE US ALL YOUR MONEY" you bet your ass we need to know why. That has nothing to do with a division of labor, it has everything to do with Individual Liberty and Natural Law.
Not even a good try comrade. You get -10 additional rations.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Settled science and consensus, two bedrocks of the scientific method... Not! I wish people would stop saying that. As a scientist, it drive me crazy to hear it. Science is never settled. Consensus science is not science.
Unfortunately, even if AGW turns out to be an immediate existential threat to humanity, the politicians and other shysters have driven it's credibility so far underground that the name had to be changed twice(global cooling -> global warming -> climate change).
"Global cooling" was never really a thing. It got some attention in the 1970s but even then a survey of the literature from 1965 to 1979 found over 6 times as many papers on global warming as on global cooling.
"Climate change" is a term that has been around since at least the 1950s. In 1956 Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
So nothing has really changed, just different things get emphasized at different time.
And the continued exaggerations and FUD are taking it past the point where for many people, an unwashed hobo yelling about martians on a street corner while wearing a placard saying 'the end is near' is more credible.
I see exaggerations and FUD from climate science deniers about what climate scientists have said and even some of that from some people who accept what climate science is saying but I've seen very little exaggeration or FUD from actual climate scientists who are usually pretty careful about what they say.
Let alone that science isn't done by consensus, It's done by repeatable testing and validation of theory.
You are right that science isn't done by consensus. Consensus occurs in science when a particular point is settled enough that scientists would be a wasting their time to continue contesting it.
Humans have always had uproars about ridiculous and meaningless differences.
The only real effect of these imbecilic ploys has been to deflect, subvert, and otherwise distract public attention from the truly important discussions affecting real events and actually relevant outcomes of the effects of climate change on the natural systems of the planet.
Now can we get on with a comprehensive discussion about the relevant topics?
PlaynBass