This being the case, the New Yorker article raises several interesting questions about Perelman choice of Ricci Flow to prove this conjecture true. This would seem to have implications for computational complexity as a potential means of generalizing about how to deform boundary conditions that might increase computational efficiency when transforming one kind of a problem [or object] into another. I was particularly intrigued by the "finding" that the solution of establishing continuous deformation is simpler for dimensions greater than 3 than it is for 3. Another intriguing idea was that one could "smooth out" more complicated deformations by "combining" various kinds of fundamentally different kinds of topologies [deformations?].
I am not a mathematician, but I have in recent years recognized the advantage of struggling to learn as much "new" (to me) math as I can get my arms around to apply to scientific problems that I have been thinking about, in the hope that it might lead me think more inventively or to loosely paraphrase Lord Kelvin, that if I can't put it into numbers where I can study it, I don't know what I'm talking about and hence my "knowledge" is of a "meager and unsatisfactory kind".
Are there some good introductory texts that integrate or might provide a conceptual bridge between concepts in topology with those that lead to some understanding of Ricci flow's?
Has anyone attempted to generalize such topological notions of local "simplicity", "singularity", and assorted other "deformable shapes" onto topological spaces defined by graphs that are trees rather than Euclidean n-dimensional spaces or is there work that suggests that one can not extend such notions of locally continuous "flows" onto such constructs which are partial rather than total oderings?
The problem with your reasoning is that the case for human - induced warming is no longer solely dependent upon the tree-ring temperature data in question. Recent gravity measurements of the rate of melting ice at the poles shows an acceleration that can only be explained by CO2 forcing.
If you or any other AGW denier have a credible alternative explanation submit it quickly to a peer reviewed scientific publication, as the world hopes you are right. In the meantime, if you don't prepare for some major realignments of both politics and economics as part of mankind's efforts to address the problem. Without evidence to the contrary in face of overwhelming scientific evidence in support of AWG, humanity needs to move from the discussion phase to a solution phase. Its extremely unlikely that most of humanity will accept the argument being made by the climate-change denialists that mass murder of hundreds of millions of people is acceptable and that humanity can just ignore. As I think about Gore's title to his book, he chose wisely as the denialists find the problem of human induced global climate change "an inconvenient truth". It is so inconvenient that all the sophism in the world won't alter the fact.
These facile arguments don't really explain why so many mathematicians have wondered why it is that mathematics is so important to the sciences. If it is not a key element of science or even science itself in some sense, why is so incredibly useful and important to science? Why should it be so spectacularly successful?
"Liberals are trying to take over the world through fascism. Global Warming increases taxes and gives the government increased control over our lives."
This statement reveals the essence of the contemporary "conservative" position on science and climate change. It reveals that ideological "conservatives" have no real explanation for the obviously rapid global planetary warming that it occurring, except to instead engage in a a desperate and intellectually dishonest effort to rationalize the indefensible. The essence of the "conservative" "solution" to global warming is to instead advocate the mass murder of hundred of millions. Are we to presume such a "conservative" solution is justifiable, because those first to be affected are likley to be poor or live on oceanic islands, on low-lying flood plains, or in regions of aridity where agriculture is already extremely difficult, or where cold temperatures are essential to the maintenace of ecosystems that maintain the economies of the high arctic.
Since when does advocating mass murder become a justifiable argument for anything?
One has to wonder, just how hot it must get and how many and who will die as the the "conservative" altenative solution to global warming is implemented, before conservative ideology will come to recongize these costs of global climate change denial?
The comment also reveals the incredible paranoia of the right, who are eager to excercise any contrivance to manufacture fake and political convenient outrage that demands virtue on the part of liberals, but absolute absolution of any responsiblity by conservatives (a theme familiar for those with any knowledge of the American predicament in Iraq and Afghanistan or the degregulation of the capital market that has led serious collapse of the global economy), as if others should pay for their privilged status and continued righteousness.
If the author had any real knowledge of fascism or liberalism, he or she would recognize that the two concepts are fundamentally contradictory, but no matter, the argument is really all about the now standard trick of appealing to any kind of jingoism that prompts relexive responsees, fear, loathing, distrust and confusion so that policies can continue to permit conservative righteousness in defense of the current inequities to march onward unperturbed, without thought of its consequences for others, and certainly without the need to reflect on the costs and burdens that so many must bear so that the self-appointed righteous are permitted to continue to indulge, regardless of how irrational their argumentation.
You say "The real lesson of Galileo wasn't that science will persecute those it feels are heretics." You suggest that we should rewrite history to imply that it was Galileo's fault that he was persecuted by the Catholic Church for his heresy. Even the Pope no longer holds such a trogloditic view of history, but then without appeals to illogic, just where will the "conservative" defence of its own abhorrent argumentation be?
Ironically, the paranoia that permeates the comment reveals that even its author recognizes that the days of appealing to irrationality to justify further self-indulgent self-righteousness are surely numbered. Is it any wonder that the billionaires, who have profited from economies that are based on pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, are so eager to fund the irrationalists in defense of the status-quo? They speak of costs and loss of control, but their primary fear is their loss of beneifts from their exhaulted positions of self-righteousness and profits, as if the undiscussed costs to others in both lives and futures are insignificant in comparison.
The author says "The problem with climate change science at this point isn't the science it's that the solutions go against conservative values." Well rest assured the science is real and your paranoia is well-found
First you have to be smart enough to read a thermometer. Second you have to be smart enough to plot data points on an abscissa and an ordinate. Third you have to be smart enough to notice that when you do this for temperatures through all recorded history that the last few decades are very much an anomaly and that literally "all of a sudden" world temperatures are getting very much warmer.
You then have to be smart enough to ask yourself why that should be the case. Let us all hope that its manmade, because if its not and if its out of our control, then hold on to your backside, because all the things you took for granted are about to undergo a very dramatic metamorphosis.
Before you give a climate-change denialist his two cents, first ask to see a full core dump of all their e-mail correspondence for the last 10 years, not just the stuff they want you to see. First ask them to show all of it.
Until then, no point arguing with them as clearly they lack any credibility at all.
Boycott them out of existence. Tell your friends, tell your parents, tell everyone. Never, ever do business with them again, ever until they BEG for forgiveness.
If you learn they do business with other businesses, let them know that you will boycott them too until they stop doing business with Muvico.
Maybe so, but they don't have the power to force you to buy their products. An extremely well organized boycott of the products of offending corporations will quickly put consumers back in a better position.
Hey folks. Its time to bite these greedy corporations back. Lets find out who is pressing the charges and boycott every last frigging movie these folks ever make or show again until they agree to drop the charges. This is simply ridiculuous. When will it stop? Its time to tech these corporations a lesson that they will not soon forget!
Science is not based on consensus, it is based on factually correct interpretation. When Galileo noted the correctness of the Copernican theory, there was no consensus. When Newton discovered the laws of gravity there was no consensus. When Darwin produced his theory of evolution by means of natural selection, there was no consensus. When Einstein produced his theories of relativity, there was no consensus.... and so it goes with nearly all important scientific breakthroughs and discoveries.
Looking for consensus in science is a fool's errand. One must instead look at the data and what ideas best support explanations of the data. With climate change, if there is any consensus it is that most scientists are largely of the same opinion that the earth is about to experience a historically dramatic period of warming over the next few hundred years, sea levels will rise dramatically, oceans will increasingly acidify over this period of time, freshwater will become increasingly scarce, and continental aridity greater, many if not most species will disappear, and probably hundreds of millions will die, probably not from the direct effects of the heat, but because of indirect effects (collapse of agriculture, disappearance of forests, lack of water for irrigation, migrations of tens if not hundreds of millions from low-lying land, wars over remaining fertile areas, etc.)
A reasonable man adapts to his environment. An unreasonable man insists on having his environment adapt to him. Consequently, progress will depend entirely upon unreasonable men.
Looks as if the rest of us are just caught in between Al Quieda and right-wing climate denying wackos.
The Anti-Global Warming crowd especially likes the Pol-Pot analogy, because like Pol-Pot, they have no concern that hundreds of millions of people will die as a result of global warming that will take place in the next few centuries.
to actually see something that could pass for "fossil" evidence. Scientists find "worm like structure" inside of fractured rock? Thats it? Thats all there is? Where's the evidence? Just one "worm"? Only one? Bacteria don't usually come as singletons. Lets see more. Lets see a cross section under TEM. Fossilized bacteria retain microstructure. Lets see some EVIDENCE, not interpretation before we get carried away (like we did the last time this photo was published).
Humans carry microbes with them. Humans would likely contaminate Mars by bringing Earth bacteria with them. We already made that mistake on the moon and now may never know for sure. Better to send totally sterilized robots capable of doing TEM and STEM and beaming back the "evidence".
But first, I would like to see EVIDENCE that the "worm-like structures" really ARE bacteria. Even if they are on the inside of the rock, there is no reason necessarily to suppose that they got there when on Mars. Asserting this is so, is hardly evidence. No evidence, whatsoever of the lattice around the "worm" was presented or mentioned. The meteorite could have been relatively porous and earthlike bacteria evidently 13,000 years to get in. Also need to see some evidence that the "worms" are dividing. If they are bacteria they would likely have to "bud" or conjugate at some point. If that can be found, then maybe we are talking about something interesting here.
And you were able to deduce all this from the presence of a "worm-like" object associated with a meteorite?
This looks a lot more like someone from inside NASA desperately searching for a way to save imploding budgets than evidence. Yes it is possible, but its also possible that its just a piece of spaghetti left behind by an alien rushing from that famous Italian take-out joint at the edge of our galaxy, you know, the one we all KNOW is out there somewhere, must be there are just so many places we haven't looked yet. Its also possible that a meteorite from elsewhere, but with a gas signature similar to that expected from Mars is the source.
If this is what passes for Exobiology these days, I think we are wasting a lot of taxpayer's money.
Newspaper should advertise that they promote exercise for overweight American's too lazy to get their larded asses up out of their chairs and away from the computer screen just long enough to walk to the end of the driveway!
And with more advertisements newspapers would be heavier too, making for even more exercise.
I agree with your sentiments completely, but there is a big problem with this solution. It was noted by Adlai Stevanson when running for president against Ike.
One enthusiastic supporter shouted out to Stevensen "You are every thinking man's candidate", to which Stevensen replied "Thank you, but I need a majority."
The problem for newspapers is that the number of thinking people is shrinking, while the number of those who now simply own a keyboard is increasing.
You can see this effect in the Huffington Post. During the run up to the 2010 election it was full of investigative reporting and could be seen as a source for substantive "news". Now, its full of "news" stories about Amazonian models, breast implants, and other things that cater to those seeking self-titilation rather than any deeper understanding.
"The important thing is that one rogue actor could ruin it for everyone. "
Be that one Rouge actor, boycott the cartel-building Murdoch and his efforts to game the internet for his personal profit.
Boycott everything that is Murdoch and teach the budding cartel that we don't need their stinking "news"! We will decide what is news and how much we want to pay for it.
Even Murdoch's own son is bailing out on this greedy dinosaur and is selling his shares in News Corporation to buy a different media enterprise, while the stock still has value.
Like to get excited about this, but there are some unanswered questions.
1) how much energy will be required to clean, maintain, and replace osmotic filters (these are largely built, maintained and replaced, using existing energy sources) (need to subtract this off of output. Notice no figures provided in article.
2) article says generated enough energy to boil water in a pot for the party (article doesn't explain just how much energy was utilized just getting people to and from the grand opening). Venture a guess that it was vastly larger than that required to boil the water in the pot. Subtract off the cost of all the other activities associated with this (keeping employees fed, warm, lights on, energy for tanks plumbing, etc and it would appear that the entire venture so far is net energy negative, so question arises how long until energy positive. Simply extrapolating the amount of water mixing from all the world's rivers is hardly equivalenet to saying that all that energy is harnessed.
3) although mixing does occur naturally, as one scales the output water must ultimately eenter environment, how will biologic hazzards due to altering natural salinity gradients be mitigated. Probably more of a problem for fishes and invertebrates is the volume of water diverted and the risk due to entrapment, particularly for larval stages (intakes may need to be shut down periodically to reduce risk).
Often new energy technologies are clever ways to get taxpayers to part with their money. We need to provide more incentives for clean energy technologies, we must insist that subsidies diminish rapidly and that ALL COSTS are taken into the equation so that only the truly workable merit much assistance.
As for those who don't seem to think the natural environment is worth saving, try living without it. Love mother earth or leave it needs to be the rallying cry for the truly moral among us. If you don't like the ecosystem here, move to outer space.
Slashdot Mirror
You say "I'm a mathematician" ->
This being the case, the New Yorker article raises several interesting questions about Perelman choice of Ricci Flow to prove this conjecture true. This would seem to have implications for computational complexity as a potential means of generalizing about how to deform boundary conditions that might increase computational efficiency when transforming one kind of a problem [or object] into another. I was particularly intrigued by the "finding" that the solution of establishing continuous deformation is simpler for dimensions greater than 3 than it is for 3. Another intriguing idea was that one could "smooth out" more complicated deformations by "combining" various kinds of fundamentally different kinds of topologies [deformations?].
I am not a mathematician, but I have in recent years recognized the advantage of struggling to learn as much "new" (to me) math as I can get my arms around to apply to scientific problems that I have been thinking about, in the hope that it might lead me think more inventively or to loosely paraphrase Lord Kelvin, that if I can't put it into numbers where I can study it, I don't know what I'm talking about and hence my "knowledge" is of a "meager and unsatisfactory kind".
Are there some good introductory texts that integrate or might provide a conceptual bridge between concepts in topology with those that lead to some understanding of Ricci flow's?
Has anyone attempted to generalize such topological notions of local "simplicity", "singularity", and assorted other "deformable shapes" onto topological spaces defined by graphs that are trees rather than Euclidean n-dimensional spaces or is there work that suggests that one can not extend such notions of locally continuous "flows" onto such constructs which are partial rather than total oderings?
The problem with your reasoning is that the case for human - induced warming is no longer solely dependent upon the tree-ring temperature data in question. Recent gravity measurements of the rate of melting ice at the poles shows an acceleration that can only be explained by CO2 forcing.
If you or any other AGW denier have a credible alternative explanation submit it quickly to a peer reviewed scientific publication, as the world hopes you are right. In the meantime, if you don't prepare for some major realignments of both politics and economics as part of mankind's efforts to address the problem. Without evidence to the contrary in face of overwhelming scientific evidence in support of AWG, humanity needs to move from the discussion phase to a solution phase. Its extremely unlikely that most of humanity will accept the argument being made by the climate-change denialists that mass murder of hundreds of millions of people is acceptable and that humanity can just ignore. As I think about Gore's title to his book, he chose wisely as the denialists find the problem of human induced global climate change "an inconvenient truth". It is so inconvenient that all the sophism in the world won't alter the fact.
Hey. You have to remember, these are the same people who can't even read a birth certificate.
These facile arguments don't really explain why so many mathematicians have wondered why it is that mathematics is so important to the sciences. If it is not a key element of science or even science itself in some sense, why is so incredibly useful and important to science? Why should it be so spectacularly successful?
"Liberals are trying to take over the world through fascism. Global Warming
increases taxes and gives the government increased control over our lives."
This statement reveals the essence of the contemporary "conservative" position
on science and climate change. It reveals that ideological "conservatives" have
no real explanation for the obviously rapid global planetary warming that it
occurring, except to instead engage in a a desperate and intellectually
dishonest effort to rationalize the indefensible. The essence of the
"conservative" "solution" to global warming is to instead advocate the mass murder
of hundred of millions. Are we to presume such a "conservative" solution is
justifiable, because those first to be affected are likley to be poor or live on
oceanic islands, on low-lying flood plains, or in regions of aridity where
agriculture is already extremely difficult, or where cold temperatures are
essential to the maintenace of ecosystems that maintain the economies of the
high arctic.
Since when does advocating mass murder become a justifiable argument for
anything?
One has to wonder, just how hot it must get and how many and who will die as the
the "conservative" altenative solution to global warming is implemented, before
conservative ideology will come to recongize these costs of global climate
change denial?
The comment also reveals the incredible paranoia of the right, who are eager to
excercise any contrivance to manufacture fake and political convenient outrage
that demands virtue on the part of liberals, but absolute absolution of any
responsiblity by conservatives (a theme familiar for those with any knowledge of
the American predicament in Iraq and Afghanistan or the degregulation of the
capital market that has led serious collapse of the global economy), as if others
should pay for their privilged status and continued righteousness.
If the author had any real knowledge of fascism or liberalism, he or she would
recognize that the two concepts are fundamentally contradictory, but no matter,
the argument is really all about the now standard trick of appealing to any kind of
jingoism that prompts relexive responsees, fear, loathing, distrust and
confusion so that policies can continue to permit conservative righteousness in
defense of the current inequities to march onward unperturbed, without thought
of its consequences for others, and certainly without the need to reflect on the
costs and burdens that so many must bear so that the self-appointed righteous
are permitted to continue to indulge, regardless of how irrational their
argumentation.
You say "The real lesson of Galileo wasn't that science will persecute those it
feels are heretics." You suggest that we should rewrite history to imply that it
was Galileo's fault that he was persecuted by the Catholic Church for his
heresy. Even the Pope no longer holds such a trogloditic view of history, but
then without appeals to illogic, just where will the "conservative" defence of
its own abhorrent argumentation be?
Ironically, the paranoia that permeates the comment reveals that even its author
recognizes that the days of appealing to irrationality to justify further
self-indulgent self-righteousness are surely numbered. Is it any wonder that the
billionaires, who have profited from economies that are based on pumping CO2
into the atmosphere, are so eager to fund the irrationalists in defense of the
status-quo? They speak of costs and loss of control, but their primary fear is
their loss of beneifts from their exhaulted positions of self-righteousness and
profits, as if the undiscussed costs to others in both lives and futures are
insignificant in comparison.
The author says "The problem with climate change science at this point isn't the
science it's that the solutions go against conservative values." Well rest
assured the science is real and your paranoia is well-found
First you have to be smart enough to read a thermometer. Second you have to be smart enough to plot data points on an abscissa and an ordinate. Third you have to be smart enough to notice that when you do this for temperatures through all recorded history that the last few decades are very much an anomaly and that literally "all of a sudden" world temperatures are getting very much warmer.
You then have to be smart enough to ask yourself why that should be the case. Let us all hope that its manmade, because if its not and if its out of our control, then hold on to your backside, because all the things you took for granted are about to undergo a very dramatic metamorphosis.
that you are amongst the slowest and have yet to catch on.
Don't worry, things will heat up and you will get your chance to figure it out.
Before you give a climate-change denialist his two cents, first ask to see a full core dump of all their e-mail correspondence for the last 10 years, not just the stuff they want you to see. First ask them to show all of it.
Until then, no point arguing with them as clearly they lack any credibility at all.
Boycott them out of existence. Tell your friends, tell your parents, tell everyone. Never, ever do business with them again, ever until they BEG for forgiveness.
If you learn they do business with other businesses, let them know that you will boycott them too until they stop doing business with Muvico.
Its time to say ENOUGH!
The way to prove this theory is for consumers to pick a corporation that exhibits reprehensible behavior and boycott their asses out of business.
Maybe so, but they don't have the power to force you to buy their products. An extremely well organized boycott of the products of offending corporations will quickly put consumers back in a better position.
Hey folks. Its time to bite these greedy corporations back. Lets find out who is pressing the charges and boycott every last frigging movie these folks ever make or show again until they agree to drop the charges. This is simply ridiculuous. When will it stop? Its time to tech these corporations a lesson that they will not soon forget!
Science is not based on consensus, it is based on factually correct interpretation. When Galileo noted the correctness of the Copernican theory, there was no consensus. When Newton discovered the laws of gravity there was no consensus. When Darwin produced his theory of evolution by means of natural selection, there was no consensus. When Einstein produced his theories of relativity, there was no consensus. ... and so it goes with nearly all important scientific breakthroughs and discoveries.
Looking for consensus in science is a fool's errand. One must instead look at the data and what ideas best support explanations of the data. With climate change, if there is any consensus it is that most scientists are largely of the same opinion that the earth is about to experience a historically dramatic period of warming over the next few hundred years, sea levels will rise dramatically, oceans will increasingly acidify over this period of time, freshwater will become increasingly scarce, and continental aridity greater, many if not most species will disappear, and probably hundreds of millions will die, probably not from the direct effects of the heat, but because of indirect effects (collapse of agriculture, disappearance of forests, lack of water for irrigation, migrations of tens if not hundreds of millions from low-lying land, wars over remaining fertile areas, etc.)
Well, Geroge Bernard Shaw wryly noted that
A reasonable man adapts to his environment. An unreasonable man insists on having his environment adapt to him. Consequently, progress will depend entirely upon unreasonable men.
Looks as if the rest of us are just caught in between Al Quieda and right-wing climate denying wackos.
What half-millennium period would that be?
The Anti-Global Warming crowd especially likes the Pol-Pot analogy, because like Pol-Pot, they have no concern that hundreds of millions of people will die as a result of global warming that will take place in the next few centuries.
to actually see something that could pass for "fossil" evidence. Scientists find "worm like structure" inside of fractured rock? Thats it? Thats all there is? Where's the evidence? Just one "worm"? Only one? Bacteria don't usually come as singletons. Lets see more. Lets see a cross section under TEM. Fossilized bacteria retain microstructure. Lets see some EVIDENCE, not interpretation before we get carried away (like we did the last time this photo was published).
Humans carry microbes with them. Humans would likely contaminate Mars by bringing Earth bacteria with them. We already made that mistake on the moon and now may never know for sure. Better to send totally sterilized robots capable of doing TEM and STEM and beaming back the "evidence".
But first, I would like to see EVIDENCE that the "worm-like structures" really ARE bacteria. Even if they are on the inside of the rock, there is no reason necessarily to suppose that they got there when on Mars. Asserting this is so, is hardly evidence. No evidence, whatsoever of the lattice around the "worm" was presented or mentioned. The meteorite could have been relatively porous and earthlike bacteria evidently 13,000 years to get in. Also need to see some evidence that the "worms" are dividing. If they are bacteria they would likely have to "bud" or conjugate at some point. If that can be found, then maybe we are talking about something interesting here.
"If this is true." Yes, thats the catchword.
And you were able to deduce all this from the presence of a "worm-like" object associated with a meteorite?
This looks a lot more like someone from inside NASA desperately searching for a way to save imploding budgets than evidence. Yes it is possible, but its also possible that its just a piece of spaghetti left behind by an alien rushing from that famous Italian take-out joint at the edge of our galaxy, you know, the one we all KNOW is out there somewhere, must be there are just so many places we haven't looked yet. Its also possible that a meteorite from elsewhere, but with a gas signature similar to that expected from Mars is the source.
If this is what passes for Exobiology these days, I think we are wasting a lot of taxpayer's money.
Newspaper should advertise that they promote exercise for overweight American's too lazy to get their larded asses up out of their chairs and away from the computer screen just long enough to walk to the end of the driveway!
And with more advertisements newspapers would be heavier too, making for even more exercise.
Should add:
3) Get rid of expensive salaries for CEO's and other greedy corporate insiders, who have done for newspapers, what they did for General Motors.
I agree with your sentiments completely, but there is a big problem with this solution. It was noted by Adlai Stevanson when running for president against Ike.
One enthusiastic supporter shouted out to Stevensen "You are every thinking man's candidate", to which Stevensen replied "Thank you, but I need a majority."
The problem for newspapers is that the number of thinking people is shrinking, while the number of those who now simply own a keyboard is increasing.
You can see this effect in the Huffington Post. During the run up to the 2010 election it was full of investigative reporting and could be seen as a source for substantive "news". Now, its full of "news" stories about Amazonian models, breast implants, and other things that cater to those seeking self-titilation rather than any deeper understanding.
"The important thing is that one rogue actor could ruin it for everyone. "
Be that one Rouge actor, boycott the cartel-building Murdoch and his efforts to game the internet for his personal profit.
Boycott everything that is Murdoch and teach the budding cartel that we don't need their stinking "news"! We will decide what is news and how much we want to pay for it.
Even Murdoch's own son is bailing out on this greedy dinosaur and is selling his shares in News Corporation to buy a different media enterprise, while the stock still has value.
Like to get excited about this, but there are some unanswered questions.
1) how much energy will be required to clean, maintain, and replace osmotic filters (these are largely built, maintained and replaced, using existing energy sources) (need to subtract this off of output. Notice no figures provided in article.
2) article says generated enough energy to boil water in a pot for the party (article doesn't explain just how much energy was utilized just getting people to and from the grand opening). Venture a guess that it was vastly larger than that required
to boil the water in the pot. Subtract off the cost of all the other activities associated with this (keeping employees fed, warm, lights on, energy for tanks plumbing, etc and it would appear that the entire venture so far is net energy negative, so question arises how long until energy positive. Simply extrapolating the amount of water mixing from all the world's rivers is hardly equivalenet to saying that all that energy is harnessed.
3) although mixing does occur naturally, as one scales the output water must ultimately eenter environment, how will biologic hazzards due to altering natural salinity gradients be mitigated. Probably more of a problem for fishes and invertebrates is the volume of water diverted and the risk due to entrapment, particularly for larval stages (intakes may need to be shut down periodically to reduce risk).
Often new energy technologies are clever ways to get taxpayers to part with their money. We need to provide more incentives for clean energy technologies, we must insist that subsidies diminish rapidly and that ALL COSTS are taken into the equation so that only the truly workable merit much assistance.
As for those who don't seem to think the natural environment is worth saving, try living without it. Love mother earth or leave it needs to be the rallying cry for the truly moral among us. If you don't like the ecosystem here, move to outer space.