Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

[winfield100]

For quite a while there has been a movement to remove dams because of all of the environmental damage they cause. This study highlights some of the impacts of dams. It could be that dams will go the way of nuclear... touted as "green" but not really.
Probably best to focus on wind and solar... and batteries.

As an aside, the Conowingo dam is on the Susquehanna river, right at the head of the Chesapeake bay, ( flows past the 3 mile island nuclear disaster which flows into and forms the Chesapeake bay, going past Baltimore, Washington DC and Norfolk/Newport news.)
There is so much sediment behind the dam that folks are quietly freaking out about “what to do?”

 

[mspohr]

As an aside, the Conowingo dam is on the Susquehanna river, right at the head of the Chesapeake bay, ( flows past the 3 mile island nuclear disaster which flows into and forms the Chesapeake bay, going past Baltimore, Washington DC and Norfolk/Newport news.)
There is so much sediment behind the dam that folks are quietly freaking out about “what to do?”

All dams eventually silt up and become useless and dangerous and need to be removed.

 

[JRP3]

Or just dredge the sediment. Really it shouldn't be that difficult to build a dam with large valves near the bottom to occasionally allow flow and sediment removal from the base.

 

[mspohr]

Tens of thousands of deaths linked to weak US air pollution rules – study

Tens of thousands of deaths linked to weak US air pollution rules – study

US air pollution rules could be hugely insufficient in preventing deaths, experts are concluding from a new study of the likely causes of death of 4.5 million veterans.

 

[mspohr]

Or just dredge the sediment. Really it shouldn't be that difficult to build a dam with large valves near the bottom to occasionally allow flow and sediment removal from the base.

They could but dumping a bunch of sediment downstream raises a bunch of issues.

 

[JRP3]

I think if done regularly a bit at a time it wouldn't have much more of an impact than normal sediment movement.

 

[mspohr]

Re-greening: can Louisville plant its way out of a heat emergency?

study commissioned by Louisville in 2015 found that the city had lost 54,000 trees a year between 2004 and 2012, reducing the city’s canopy cover from 40% to 37% over the period. Today, canopy cover is likely to be around 27%, according to Cindi Sullivan, executive director and president of the nonprofit TreesLouisville.

Trees provide shade while also lowering the temperature of their surroundings through evaporative cooling. Without action, it is feared the tree canopy will continue to decline as trees fall due to storms, pests and age – a scenario that could see the city’s rapid warming continue, alongside a number of other deleterious effects.

 

[JRP3]

Greta may be a time traveler, or immortal 121-year-old photo sparks Greta Thunberg conspiracy theory: ‘She’s here to save us’

 

[ohmman]

Opinion: How do we convince climate change deniers? That’s the wrong question.

 

[SageBrush]

Opinion: How do we convince climate change deniers? That’s the wrong question.

EXACTLY

This is why I put all climate change denialists on ignore.

 

[SageBrush]

I seem to recall some of the concerns were, more or less,
“what kind of witches brew of toxic chemicals and poisons are in that sediment and what do we do with it?”

That is easy.

"The same chemicals in your drinking water."

 

[Chopr147]

Climate always changes so nobody is denying. Listening to people like Bernie tell me the world will end in 8-9 years is amusing. Or AOC 12 years. Whatever. Man, I would think Obama, the God of GW religion would not have spent millions on an ocean front property with things so dire. Actually oceanfront has gone way up in value last 10 years. So maybe a good decision for him. Even this thread mentions Global Warming because it started in 2013, before the projections fell flat. Never even hear the term GW mentioned anymore. But yea, I'm the gullible one HAve a nice day

 

[JRP3]

But yea, I'm the gullible one

You sure are. No one said the world was ending in 8-12 years, what they said is we have about that much time to take action before seriously negative effects start impacting human civilization. Plus I hate to break it to you but Obama's property is quite a way back from the beach, and he can probably afford flood insurance.

 

[SageBrush]

New You sure are. No one said the world was ending in 8-12 years, what they said is we have about that much time to take action before seriously negative effects start impacting human civilization.

My take is somewhat different: I understand the 10 years to be a threshold by which earth has to markedly reduce carbon emissions (by some 50%) to avoid tipping points. After that more reductions and more deadlines will have to be dealt with.

 

[SDRick]

How much credence is in the report up thread that even if aggressive reduction goals are met, the earth will continue warming until about 2300?

 

[ohmman]

Climate always changes so nobody is denying.

Actually, quite a few people in this thread have denied that it is warming at all. Many Republican leaders are denying it. The President of the US denies it. If there's a cold winter day, that's evidence to some that it's not warming. If extreme weather events are attributable to climate change, people deny it. There is no consistent stance on climate denial, because it's merely built out of doubt.

 

[SageBrush]

How much credence is in the report up thread that even if aggressive reduction goals are met, the earth will continue warming until about 2300?

That is basic (as in trivial) science. It reflects the breakdown of GHG in the atmosphere.

 

[mspohr]

Finally, the public wants action on the climate crisis. Now politics must catch up

Finally, the public wants action on the climate crisis. Now politics must catch up | Stephen Buranyi

A cosy consensus among politicians allowed lofty targets to be set, and then ignored. But now voters want actual solutions

But after an unprecedented wave of popular climate protests – centred around the latest and most terrifying scientific predictions – recent polling suggests that orthodoxy has suddenly and dramatically reversed. A YouGov poll found that more than half the country backs a national target of zero carbon emissions by 2030, a policy that as recently as a year ago was offered only by the Green party. Other polls suggest that two-thirds of the country believes the climate crisis is the biggest issue facing humankind, and that it has overtaken the economy on voters’ list of concerns.

These visions are likely to be attacked by some as reckless, or ineffectual. But they are serious proposals because they place their policies within a political vehicle familiar to each party’s voters, and to the wider public. They indicate that the climate crisis may be about to descend from the lofty realm of consensus into the arena of real politics. That can only happen when the public is given – or demands – a proper democratic choice.

 

[SDRick]

That is basic (as in trivial) science. It reflects the breakdown of GHG in the atmosphere.

The science may be basic but are the projections accurate? Will the earth will continue heating until 2300 even if reduction goals are met? If so, I would say that this is far from trivial.

 

[JRP3]

I think the problem is no one actually knows what will happen or how fast. We've been running an uncontrolled experiment on our environment for over a century.