Nonsense. Nothing in the science dictates the need for crash programs or extraordinary measures. And yet global harvests are increasing dramatically. There are some scientists that argue the amount of benefit from temperature gains far outweigh any of the alleged damages. Nonsense. The environment does react to where the co2 originated. It's a global process. And yet, on net their the world's biggest polluter. We don't care yet we lead the world in carbon reduction? Are you serious? Taxes don't impress me. And we've had CAFE standards for decades. Per Capita is nonsense. And how many of those nations met their Paris Accord goals? I'd like to see some cites for all the stuff you've put forward.
I didn't claim it did. What I pointed out is that some things that are beneficial to climate change pay us back in immediate benefits. The example I gave was paying us back in health care cost benefits. You can look into this more if you want. That's because they have about 4 times as many people. Blaming them for having more people is obviously silly. Besides, there is the issue that they are an emerging nation. We had a serious hand in the greenhouse gas disaster due to our industrial age. Now, telling China that they can't have an industrial age is not a viable solution. Well, the fact that we don't care is obvious. The fact that we're emitting less greenhouse gas is pretty much solely due to the fact that gas is cheaper for creating electricity than coal is. Do we warrant a big gold star for that? Taxes are an important tool that legislatures guide actions in the free market. When gas costs more, people buy smaller cars and drive less. CAFE standards have been a total joke from the beginning. Dem Senator Dingal and others made sure that CAFE standards were engineered to avoid changing anything in the industry. Per capita is the only real way to compare what countries are doing. Otherwise, all you're doing is comparing population count. Yes, you can criticise the Paris Accord goals, and more modern attempts, too. But, America is at least as bad. And, this is the politics, not the science, of course.
I've done that over and over and over again. Ask Hays. I've been saying the same thing about Anthony Watt for months. The fundamental point is that it is politics, not science. One does NOT decide science by looking to see what some contrarian printed.
I could also point out that I have not ONCE "bad mouthed Watt's paper". I really think you need to read some back posts and then form a new question.
Nope. The problem is that a paper that a blogger chooses does not give a view of the science that could possible be considered to falsify that entire field of science. That's just a seriously stupid process idea. There is NOTHING on Anthony's site that would give you that information. All you know is that Anthony chose that paper and that he is seriously contrarian. That's it. There is nothing about science that is one sided like that. Ideas have to face the serious review of that field of science.
No one, certainly not WUWT, claims the paper falsifies anything. That red herring is your contribution alone.
~ "Environmentalism is a mental disorder. It is a free floating focal anxiety. It floats around and focuses on the latest cute belief structure." Paul Noel Former Research Scientist 6 Level 2 UAH ( 2008 - 14 ) " You can fool all of the people some of the time. You can even fool some of the people all of the time. Some people even insist on being fooled. These people themselves are fools ." James California Politicalforum.com
Great video! Scientists Fear Impending 'Environmental Nuclear Bomb' From Drying Great Salt Lake "We know about dust storms, we know about particulate pollution, we know about heavy metals and how they're bad for humans." They need to add a Snake to Salt Lake channel to replenish the lake for the duration of the drought, in order to protect the human population in Utah. It would also likely be useful for hydroelectric generation.
Uh, no. There are already three rivers running into the lake. And adding in the Snake will do nothing but kill the ecosystem from that point down. And you want them for hydropower? There are already over twenty hydroelectric plants on the river downstream of where it would have to be diverted. And there is no outlet from there, there never has been. That's why it's called "The Great Basin". It is lower than all the other land around it. The only way that water would ever leave again is if it finally got to the point of Lake Bonneville around 18,000 years ago. And then it resulted in massive floods that wiped out almost everything from the Idaho-Utah border deep into Washington. And there is no "drought". Rainfall levels have barely changed in over 2,000 years. Man made depletion of water is not the same as a drought. This is exactly what I mean about people not understanding science. The Salt Lake has been dying for well over ten thousand years, and there is nothing man can do to stop that. But congratulations. Your plan would destroy most of the ecosystem of southern Idaho, and eliminate a huge source of power.
But if somebody wants to help avoid this "catastrophe", then they should simply help nature and accelerate the natural process. Finish drying out the lake, then cover it with about a hundred meters of dirt and rocks.
Uh, it's not your call. They aren't enough. Fake news. The Snake carries an average of 1,476,564,840 gallons an hour. The idea that diverting a small portion of that to restore and maintain water balance in the Salt Lake will 'kill the ecosystem' is hogwash. Further, restoring the Salt Lake will increase rain and snowfall in the greater area, including the Snake and Salt Lake drainage. Fake news. The entire area is in a drought. https://www.theguardian.com › us-news › 2022 › jul › 05 › utah-great-salt-lake-new-low-drought Utah's Great Salt Lake hits new historic low amid drought in western US ... 'The Great Salt Lake has hit a new historic low for the second time in less than a year, a dire milestone as the US west continues to weather a historic mega-drought. The Utah department of....' And people are using more water, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the Snake to maintain hydraulic balance in the Salt Lake Basin, which feeds the rain/snow cylce for the area. Shrill uninformed hyperbole. The Snake will be connected to the Great Salt Lake. If we don't do it, our children or grandchildren will. Right now the reactionary obstructors of progress hold more sway than they will in time as common sense overcomes their hair on fire knee jerk reactions to human development.
~ As concern of drought in states like Arizona, California and Nevada became a political topic in the early 1990's , preliminary plans were devised for aqueducts going from the Pacific Northwest to the lower states. Also desalination of seawater was debated — with some cities going forward with the initiative. I wonder what happened to all those proposals ... ? { Meanwhile in California political genius considered "toilet to tap " }
They'll be back. Of course will move water from places where we have an abundance to places were we need more. Humans have been doing that for at least 8,000 years. We have a group of hyperpartisan cultists that have done nice job making a bed of regulation that holds back progress for now, but it won't forever. In a hundred years, the battle will be done and these water projects will be in operation providing; flood control, water storage, hydroelectric power, and recreation.
Fake News. Salt Lake is the remnant of Lake Bonneville which breached it's natural barrier and flooded into the Snake River draining all the way to the Pacific Ocean. This is nothing more than a small reversal of that ancient debt in which the Snake River gives just a portion of the water back. This will restore the lake effect snow and rainfall to the Salt Lake Basis and result in peace and good will among all humans and wildlife as they embrace the grand reversal of just a bit of that ancient outflow. You need to get out of the way of progress and the restoration of balance and serenity.
Betting on Americans is generally a solid long-term bet. The fools are at their apex and beginning their great decline.
No, it's a fact. They aren't enough. Which irrigates tens of thousands of square miles of land, and supports over 200,000 people. And what is a "small portion"? Here is a fact. Salt Lake takes in over 2.9 million acre feet per year of water. It also evaporates over 3 million acre feet per year. Simple fact, even without humans drinking it, the water is evaporating faster than it comes in. Humans are accelerating it, but they are not causing it. Now granted, the Snake River does discharge around 36 million acre feet per year into the Columbia. But way up river in the area you are talking about? Try around 4 million acre feet per year. The point you would have to divert is way upstream, there are no more major rivers joining until it gets close to the Oregon border. Completely wrong. Show me meteorological data that shows that rainfall has significantly decreased in over 2,000 years. I can tell you tight now, you can't. Because it hasn't. Hell, the lake that was there before was not even created by rainfall in the first place, it was created by the melting of the mile thick glacier that used to sit over Missoula, Montana. It was created entirely by a melting glacier, and not by precipitation. Excess water use by humans is not a drought. Rainfall has not decreased, what you have is humans using more than nature can provide. That is by definition not a drought. No, it will not. It sits inside of a giant basin, surrounded by mountains. The only way it will have an outlet back is if the lake resumes its natural size back when it was Lake Bonneville. And at that time it will resume flowing out again through the Red Rock Pass. And oh yes, "reactionary obstructers". Well, too bad this reactionary actually knows something of the region and its geology and geological history. How about you tell us about how the great "progressives" handled rerouting of rivers in the Soviet Union? We can start with the Aral Sea. That was once the fourth largest lake in the world. Now it is dead, all because of "progressives".
Zorro, I suggest you actually take the time to learn the history of what you are proposing to tamper with.
It's a fact that these are OUR collective resources and it's not your call. You're maintaining that ANY portion will result in downstream disaster on the Snake river and that's knee-jerk nonsense. Stipulating that your figures are correct, and I haven't double checked them that means that 0.1 million acre/feet a year would stabilize the lake at current levels. And as it stops depletion, it will also stop the reduction in of rain/snow fall in the area caused by lake reduction. It's average flow is about 10% higher than that, but, that's close enough for pencil work. And interestingly the 4 million acre feet between your estimate and US Geologic Survey's estimate is 40 TIMES the amount necessary to stabilize the lake level, so what you claim would be 'catastrophic' is nothing more than a rounding error necessary to stabilize and even replenish the Great Salt Lake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_River It's your claim, do your own work. Further, rainfall levels 2,000 years ago have no relevance to day. But, over the last century, I think your point holds up. Salt Lake is just a bit drier than it's wettest decade and much wetter than it's driest decade, during the dust bowl. You view humans as a parasite. We need water, we have water, and we will direct it from where we have it to where we need it. So what? Stabilizing and restoring it to it's more recent levels does not require an outlet, it requires another inlet. One from the Snake River will do nicely, presuming that the affected states can work out a deal that benefits them both.
And do you know why it is a dead and dying lake? It is not because it is evaporating. It is because it has no outlet. It is the same reason that other lakes are dead. Like the Dead Sea, Mono Lake, the Salton Sea, Lake Eyre, and more. Because the rivers bring in water laden with salt and minerals, and when it evaporates it leaves them behind. This causes the water over time to become more and more saturated with them, and kills most of the life in it. So you pump in more water, that will do not a damned thing for the increasing salinity of the lake itself. And how in the hell are you going to engineer bringing in all that water over a mountain range? To give an idea of the amount you are talking about, the California Aqueduct provides most of the water to Southern California, and it has to go over the San Gabriel Mountains. And the volume of that is... Just under 2,000 acre feet per day. The Salt Lake evaporates 8,000 acre feet per day. So in order to "stabilize" a lake that is naturally dying, you are going to have to create a system four times larger than the California Aqueduct. And how are you going to solve the salinity issue? Because that is what is really killing the lake, not the water being removed. Pumping in more water will only add to the salinity problem.
