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).
It's called synecdoche. Calling businessmen "suits" and supporters "partisans" is referring to a whole by using a part. By the same token we refer to carbon dioxide as "carbon" and NO3- as "nitrogen".
In context is is perfectly clear to someone who actually understands what the whole is. To those who do not understand what the whole is calling the whole by its proper name is unlikely to be enlightening.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
If we were talking about pure rainwater falling directly into bodies of water, it would. But we're talking about runoff. After that initially pure water runs over the land it's not so pure by the time it reaches a natural water body.
Take an empty cup and fill it from a city gutter during a heavy rain. Now drink it. Not an attractive proposition, is it?
In the case of eutrophication, we're worried about fertilizers applied to crops and lawns. This is in the form of various highly soluble nitrogen and phosphorous salts which are highly soluble and readily washed away. People use these highly soluble compounds because they stimulate rapid plant growth. These do the same thing for microorganisms when they reach a marine or fresh water body.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So basically, global warming is no longer causing droughts, but now 20% more rain.
Earth has more than one place. More than one concurrent weather event. Furthermore, weather and climate are different. And drought and increased rainfall can happen together; less frequent rain, with heavier storms when it does rain. You'll still measure increased plant growth, but it won't be the food plants, it will be the pioneer (weed) plants.
Bullshit. Look up the etymology of "partisan". Also this is supposedly science. If someone uses names of elements for chemical compounds in a scientific context, I must assume they don't know what they're talking about.
Eutrophication actually being reported is being caused by fertilizer runoff, not additional rain. Early predictions of climate change forecast drought everywhere. Now we're worrying about excess rain. Are liberals incapable of reporting good news?
Where do you get the "drought everywhere"? Droughts, yes, but not everywhere. Droughts will be an increasing problem in areas that already suffer from them. Other areas are likely to see more clouds and more rain.
Just stick to the truth (avoiding straw men) and you'll understand that it really isn't a liberal/conservative issue, it's reality.
Lemon curry???
Bullshit. Look up the etymology of "partisan". Also this is supposedly science. If someone uses names of elements for chemical compounds in a scientific context, I must assume they don't know what they're talking about.
Herein lies the rub... This context is not scientific but political: "Carbon tax" is not science but politics, and the "Carbon" in question is carbon dioxide, not coal or diamonds. "Nitrogen" is similarly used instead of "nitrates" in this speculation about pollution and changes in water quality.
SIGBUS @ NO-07.308
So more heat in the air means more clouds? The same clouds that cool the earth? It's almost as if the atmosphere has a natural mechanism to maintain a fairly even the temperature on the surface.
Oh, and "extreme precipitation events"? You mean these things we call "storms"? That's nothing new.
Sometimes it's wet, sometimes it's dry. Climate changes, no doubt about that. Not much we can do about it either.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
That's 80+ years from now, in other words we have time.
Really? And how, do you plan to deal with the accumulated buildup of 200 years in the span of 80 when a good portion of the populace don't even understand the basic science and refuse to accept reality? Climate change is bringing about a whole host of issues, a number of which need to be dealt with far in advance. We're already 40 years behind the curve.
Furthermore, the climate system lags inputs by a good 30 years. In other words, if you think you have a problem now, it will be worse 30 years later.
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.
You "hear" incorrectly. Assuming no runaway feedbacks kick off, the expected increase by the end of the century is between 1 and 2 meters. As far as dealing with it, we're already FAILING. Places like Miami flood during high tide now. Salt water intrusion is already a problem. Even a 1 meter rise would present significant challenges, and shoring up thousands of miles of coast to deal with that (not to mention hurricanes) is neither trivial nor quick.
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.
This is why ignorance is dangerous. You do not simply "move" the agricultural infrastructure that's been developed over the past century north. Such an effort would take decades, even if were feasible. There's are REASONS why the corn belt is where it is. Arable land, ideal climate, etc. allows for very productive farming. But what's north of that? Are there aquifers to support such operations? Will the sail be able to handle the stress? Will the climate actually be conducive? Can the crops handle the new conditions?
It takes more than warm weather to grow crops at scale. You have to have the right mix of conditions. There are very few places on our planet where mass agriculture can be done consistently and productively. Sure, you can move to a new area if prices get high enough to make it feasible to turn someplace like, say, the Canadian Shield into farmland, but I don't think paying $30 for a loaf of bread is "dealing" with the problem.
Rain this, droughts that, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, blah, blah blah. We got this figured out.
No, we really don't. If you've been paying attention over the past decade, there are several prominent examples of exactly how NOT figured out things are. First to mind is the record heat/drought in Russia a few years back that caused them to cease exports. And that's just a taste. If a similar event caused the US to cease exports there would be significant global repercussions. If you think we're immune to such things, you're extremely naive.
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.
The only reason you think it's a "big nothing" is because it hasn't impacted you personally (it actually has, you just aren't paying attention). Climate change happens over decades. It's slow boiling a frog. You and people like you expect an immediate cause and effect. The climate system doesn't work that way short of major catastrophes.
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
~X~
Yeah it seems unlikely that pumping billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere every year could have any effect on the climate...
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.