‘Climate change is water change’

Post by iofj » Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 2:37 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #48

niftich wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why not build This is a fair question, and pops up in nearly every thread about this topic, usually replied to with a link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Water_and_Power... and/or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recycling_and_Northern_D... The idea has been raised before, and dismissed because of massive costs, unprecedented environmental impacts, and the like.

Yup. And to put my biases on the table, I believe this is where the climate change disaster is heading. Nobody, and I mean really nobody, with any scientific training believes that humans can control the climate (yes we affect the climate but we don't yet have any way of telling it to do one thing or another). Further, our models for the ways we are affecting the climate indicate that massive changes in the way water…

I don't understand how your statements aren't a direct logical contradiction. One of two things is true:

1) we are able to predict the effect of external changes to earth's climate.

2) we are not.

In the first case, we can predict climate change and find an effect to change the climate to suit us. In the second case we can do neither. But the idea that we can predict climate change but are unable to predict the effect of deliberate changes doesn't fit in either situation.

So how can you hold this position ? It does not make sense ?

Furthermore, I seriously doubt preppers in Montana are a significant part of the climate change policy makers.

Post by iofj » Sat, Aug 20, 2016, 2:39 PM UTC

dmoy wrote: post #35

ChuckMcM wrote: post #28

People talk about this being "unprecedented" however there is ample evidence that the Pueblo people lived in the Colorado River watershed, and then moved on after an extended drought. That was a few thousand years ago, and frankly I don't see the residents of Las Vegas moving on, but I can imagine that changes that happen with or without anthropogenic contribution have been affecting communities in the area. Where is…

That sounds like an absolutely massive infrastructure investment. How much would it cost to move water for tens of millions of people thousands of miles? Growing up in one of the wetter areas, we can't even figure out how to deal with a spring thaw bringing so much water that it floods and destroys towns. What you're proposing sounds even harder.

We can, we're just unwilling to. Moving populations is a political problem, not a physical one. Correctly damming with proper overflow regions is a well-understood problem, and a few countries have dealt with it effectively. Most have simply refused to make the necessary investments.

Re: ‘Climate change is water change’

Re: ‘Climate change is water change’