Claim: Dams are major driver of global environmental change

From the UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO

Lake Orovile Dam

Water reservoirs created by damming rivers could have significant impacts on the world’s carbon cycle and climate system that aren’t being accounted for, a new study concludes.

The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Waterloo and the Université libre de Bruxelles, appears in Nature Communications. It found that man-made dam reservoirs trap nearly one-fifth of the organic carbon moving from land to ocean via the world’s rivers.

While they can act as a significant source or sink for carbon dioxide, reservoirs are poorly represented in current climate change models.

“Dams don’t just have local environmental impacts. It’s clear they play a key role in the global carbon cycle and therefore the Earth’s climate,” said Philippe Van Cappellen, a Canada Excellence Research Chair in Ecohydrology at Waterloo and the study’s co-author. “For more accurate climate predictions, we need to better understand the impact of reservoirs.”

There are currently in excess of 70,000 large dams worldwide. With the continuing construction of new dams, more than 90 per cent of the world’s rivers will be fragmented by at least one dam within the next 15 years.

The study’s researchers used a novel method to determine what happens to organic carbon traveling down rivers and were able to capture the impact of more than 70 per cent of the world’s man-made reservoirs by volume. Their model links known physical parameters such as water flow and reservoir size with processes that determine the fate of organic carbon in impounded rivers.

“With the model used in this study, we can better quantify and predict how dams affect carbon exchanges on a global scale,” said Van Cappellen, a professor in Waterloo’s Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences.

In similar recent studies, the group of researchers also found that ongoing dam construction impedes the transport of nutrients such as phosphorus, nitrogen and silicon through river networks. The changes in nutrient flow have global impacts on the quality of water delivered to wetlands, lakes, floodplains and coastal marine areas downstream.

“We’re essentially increasing the number of artificial lakes every time we build a dam,” said Taylor Maavara, lead author and a PhD student at Waterloo. “This changes the flow of water and the materials it carries, including nutrients and carbon.”

###

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

187 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Gerry, Engliand
May 17, 2017 11:40 am

Well since carbon doesn’t play a key role in Earth’s climate we have another pointless study.
Anyone else have an issue with the statement that over 90% of the World’s rivers will have a dam in 15 years time? That seems completely way over the top to me.

wws
Reply to  Gerry, Engliand
May 17, 2017 12:59 pm

File this study under “When we change the world, the world changes.”
Wow, what a concept!
In relation to the surface area of the oceans, all the lakes we have made are a rounding area, so there’s not going to be a significant global change in water vapor in the atmosphere due to evaporation. However, there could by large local changes, probably allowing many things to grow and thrive in areas where they otherwise would not. Imagine that.

Bryan A
Reply to  wws
May 17, 2017 2:20 pm

What did the Fish say when it swam into the Concrete Wall??
DAM

george e. smith
Reply to  wws
May 20, 2017 10:20 pm

The heck they say ! you build a dam and something changes.
I never would have guessed that. Do they really think building Boulder Dam actually changed anything ?
What about Grand Coulee Dam; did building that change anything at all other than just leave a whole lot of concrete laying around, that wasn’t there before.
I wonder if building the City of New York changed anything.
I think I could use some grant money to see if building anything, changes anything.
g

Mike
Reply to  wws
May 21, 2017 5:38 pm

right on WWS!
Also there’s a bunch of dry land below sea level, the Qatara depression in Egypt/Libya, The Afar depression in Ethiopia/Eritrea, Death valley California, the Dead sea, Lake Clare Australia to name a few. Filling them with sea water would: a). ‘Fight’ sea level rise. b). Cool the planet through increased evaporation c). Increase humidity / rainfall in desert areas. and d). Offer Investment opportunity for an international chain of BSL* Yacht Clubs. Any Punters out there?
* Below Sea Level.

Reply to  Mike
May 23, 2017 9:31 am

Imperial Valley is also BSL

Ben of Houston
Reply to  Gerry, Engliand
May 17, 2017 1:25 pm

If they are meaning river systems from source all the way to the sea, that seems right. Almost every river has a dam somewhere along its length. While you can’t dam the whole Amazon or Mississippi, some of the tributaries are dammed.

Richard Bell
Reply to  Ben of Houston
May 18, 2017 12:13 pm

While you ***could*** build a dam across the mouth of the Amazon river. By ‘***could***’, I mean that it is possible to put in enough temporary diversion pipelines, the pumps to move the water, the prime movers to run the pumps, and get the water around the construction site, but if you have the power to drive the pumps, what do you need the dam for?
While the Chinese Communist Party would bankroll this in a heartbeat to make it look like there was real growth in their economy [overproduction in almost every category, so they need the appearance of high demand], the reason that there is no dam at the mouth of the Amazon is that there is no reason for a dam at the mouth of the Amazon.
Damming the Mississippi would so complicate transcontinental movement in the US, that it is a non-starter, even if The State could displace everyone on the flood plain with zero compensation.

Reply to  Gerry, Engliand
May 17, 2017 2:43 pm

Possibly 89% of the world’s rivers already have at least one dam?
I was really surprised that it wasn’t 97%.

george e. smith
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 20, 2017 10:23 pm

Well if you build the All Amazon Dam way upstream, you could get by with a smaller dam. Seems pretty silly to build a dam across the mouth. Just build it right up in the head waters where its only a few yards across.
g

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Gerry, Engliand
May 17, 2017 3:24 pm

That could be true if your definition of a river is a stream with a dam in it!

JohninRedding
Reply to  Gerry, Engliand
May 17, 2017 5:50 pm

My thoughts exactly. You have to assume (better yet, prove) that carbon is a major player in earth’s climate. Based on the last 20 years of no temperature increase that puts in question the significance of carbon impact on earth’s climate.

crackers345
Reply to  Gerry, Engliand
May 18, 2017 12:26 am

of course carbon plays a key role
in earth’s climate.
denying that is denying
basic physics.

Reply to  crackers345
May 18, 2017 7:47 am

High school physics. When you dive deeper, it gets more complicated.

ferdberple
Reply to  crackers345
May 18, 2017 10:24 am

without carbon dioxide there would be no life. life modifies the local climate to maintain life. those life forms that could not went extinct long ago. something the climate models have ignored.

higley7
Reply to  Gerry, Engliand
May 18, 2017 6:24 am

This study is also pointless because it is not science, but uses fatally flawed models and cobbles onto them. Possibly good science layered onto bad or junk science results in bad science every time. A real waste of time and money.

Latitude
May 17, 2017 11:41 am

The study’s researchers used a novel method….
pop…….the sound of my head exploding

Bryan A
Reply to  Latitude
May 17, 2017 12:29 pm

Perhaps they read it in a Novel

Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 3:01 pm

Aren’t most novels fiction?

Mark from the Midwest
Reply to  Latitude
May 17, 2017 1:28 pm

Was a typo, supposed to be NAVEL method, as in gaze at their navel

Not Chicken Little
Reply to  Latitude
May 17, 2017 2:10 pm

So they didn’t really determine what was happening by experiment and observation, but used a computer model…so yes, it was a novel method, and the novel is a work of fiction…

Jay Turberville
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
May 17, 2017 6:07 pm

Everybody knows that you need at least a 528 gallon aquarium to properly do this kind of study.

JEM
Reply to  Latitude
May 17, 2017 3:21 pm

I thought the rule for attorneys was that when you see the word ‘novel’ in something coming from a judge, you’re in trouble.

Biggg
Reply to  JEM
May 18, 2017 5:51 am

Come on everyone knows it is 528.6 gallons for a proper study.

Ian Magness
May 17, 2017 11:42 am

Dams trap water and thus anything in that water.
Shock!

May 17, 2017 11:44 am

Well I never!

Nozza
May 17, 2017 11:46 am

Hahaha! What a useless piece of research. 90% my “arse”!

May 17, 2017 11:47 am

I guess Dams are now Fossil fuels. And of course Nuclear (newclar for Jimmah Cawtaw fans) is verbotten. Which leaves just wind and sun.
Yea, that will run the world.

Tim
Reply to  philjourdan
May 17, 2017 12:07 pm

You left the ‘i’ out of ruin.

Bryan A
Reply to  philjourdan
May 17, 2017 12:30 pm

Thought it was Nucular

Tom Halla
Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 1:18 pm

Nucular was George W. Bush.

Reply to  Tom Halla
May 18, 2017 7:30 am

Before your time. Cawtaw did it first.

Tom Halla
Reply to  philjourdan
May 18, 2017 8:46 am

The difference between a Georgia and a Texas accent. I do remember Jimmy boy

Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 1:22 pm

You are probably correct. I never could spell southern.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 2:21 pm

You’re right Tom
Nucular was Bush…and Bush II

Joe Shaw
Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 4:01 pm

And Jimmy Carter who was a actually trained Naval Nucular Engineer.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Joe Shaw
May 17, 2017 5:08 pm

Well, not so much. He was more highly qualified asa USN officer than I thought, but most definitely NOT as a nuclear engineer, nor as a nuclear power plant operator/engineer/designer.
This from a letter relating the details:

Dear Mr. Fialka ..
One myth correction, however. President Carter was a submarine officer, but he was not a nuclear engineer.
He graduated from the US Naval Academy in June 1946 (he entered in 1943 with the class of 1947, but his class was in a war-driven accelerated 3 year program) with an undesignated bachelor of science degree. Even if the Naval Academy had offered a majors program for his class, it is unlikely that it would have included Nuclear Engineering as a option – after all, the Manhattan Project was a dark secret for most of his time at Annapolis.
After graduation, Jimmy Carter served as a surface warfare officer for a two years and then volunteered for the submarine force. He served in a variety of billets, including engineer officer of diesel submarines and qualified to command submarines.
In November 1952, he began a three month temporary duty assignment at the Naval Reactor branch. He started nuclear power school (a six month course of study that leads to operator training) in March, 1953. In July 1953, his father passed away and he resigned his commission to run the family peanut farm. He was discharged from active duty on 9 October, 1953. According to an old friend of mine who served as Rickover’s personnel officer at Naval Reactors, LT Carter did not complete nuclear power school because of the need to take care of business at home.
The prototype for the USS Nautilus was completed in Idaho in May 1953, so LT Carter might have had some opportunity to see it in action before leaving the Navy. However, the USS Nautilus did not go to sea until January 17, 1955, so there is no possibility that he ever qualified to stand watch on a nuclear powered submarine.
He never experienced the incredible gift of being able to operate a power plant that was so clean that it could run inside a sealed submarine, so reliable that it could power that submarine even deep under the Arctic ice, and so energy dense that the submarine could operate for years without new fuel.
When I think about the 1976 campaign and the importance of the energy issue at that time, I cannot help but wonder why Jimmy Carter’s promoters made such a big deal about his nuclear expertise. My wonder turns to cynicism when I think about the policies that his administration imposed and the damage that they did to the growth of the industry just at a time when we most needed a vibrant new energy industry player.
Best regards,
Rod Adams
Editor, Atomic Insights
http://www.atomicinsights.com

https://atomicinsights.com/picking-on-the-jimmy-carter-myth/
And some more details on Carter’s “enhanced resume” as a “nuclear engineer” …
https://seekerblog.com/2009/08/27/resume-inflation-how-a-peanut-farmer-became-a-nuclear-engineer/

It is embarrassing how much rubbish we acquire that accumulates the varnish of truth. Until I read Rod Adams today I carried around the belief that Pres. Jimmy Carter was a Navy-trained nuclear engineer and a former nuclear officer. He was neither. What is dangerous about this sort of resume-buffing and credentials-inflation is that Carter was able to destroy the entire US nuclear industry – in part because people thought he “must know about that nuclear stuff”.
If Lovins’s article did influence the 1976 election, it helped to elevate another man whose resume has received some inflation. That inflation may have been done by political handlers, but there is something slightly questionable about allowing someone to create a life story that is simply not true. I would guess that somewhere north of 90% of the people who know who Jimmy Carter is would tell you that he was a nuclear submarine officer. Some who have watched a PBS show called The Presidents: Jimmy Carter might even say that he served as the engineer officer of the USS Seawolf, the second US nuclear submarine. If the person being questioned is a real buff who has taken a Pentagon tour and seen the wall displays that celebrate the presidents who have served as Naval Officers, he might even tell you that President Carter received a Master of Science in Nuclear Engineering from Union College in Schenectady, New York.
The problem with each of those descriptions of Jimmy Carter’s nuclear experience is that they are wrong, something one can figure out with a calendar that has accurate historical dates.
Jimmy Carter could not have been a nuclear engineer based on his college degree program; he graduated from the US Naval Academy in 1946 with a general Bachelor of Science, before that school offered any designated degree programs.
According to the Naval Historical Center, LT Carter was honorably discharged from the US Navy on October 8, 1953 so that he could return home to care for the family farm. He had only started his nuclear power training on March 1, 1953. The training, in those very early days of the Navy’s nuclear program before the start up of Navy training courses, was conducted at civilian colleges, and Union College was one of the locations. However, it was definitely not a place where one could earn a master’s degree in nuclear engineering in just 7 months. That is especially true when you understand a bit about the Navy and realize that LT Carter probably did not do too much studying after he found out that his father had passed away in July 1953. (Leaving the Navy is not as simple as walking out the door.)
The PBS documentary is quite misleading with regard to Carter’s service, since it states that he served as the engineer of the USS Seawolf, the second US nuclear submarine. That statement is made with a backdrop of the USS Seawolf in operation. Unfortunately, that would have been impossible. The keel laying for the Seawolf took place in September 1953. That means that the construction process started just one month before Carter left the Navy to return to Plains. His service record indicates that he was assigned to the crew that would eventually man the USS Seawolf, but that is certainly not the same as serving as the engineering officer of an operating submarine in terms of the opportunity to absorb nuclear technical knowledge.
It is possible, but unlikely that LT Carter ever watched a nuclear plant in operation. S1W, the prototype for the USS Nautilus, the first nuclear propulsion plant that the Navy constructed, started operating in March 1953, but it would be unusual to have nuclear power school students visiting the prototype during their first six months of training. After Carter left the Navy, there is no evidence of his having had any nuclear related employment; he was too busy growing and selling peanuts and serving as a Georgia state senator and later as Georgia’s governor.
President Carter’s exaggeration of his nuclear experience had an impact on the way that the public viewed his cautious statements about nuclear energy and the way that political leaders accepted his efforts to restrict its growth. When he issued an energy policy that emphasized the use of coal as a way to reduce American dependence on foreign oil, there were many who expressed the view that he must know what he is doing, after all, he was a “nuclear engineer”

Michael darby
Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 5:14 pm

One good thing about Carter, he didn’t have any bone spurs in his feet.

Reply to  Michael darby
May 18, 2017 12:02 pm

Or grey cells in the head.

Darrin
Reply to  Bryan A
May 18, 2017 10:26 am

FYI concerning Jimmy Carter and the Nautilus. In Idaho there’s an area designated as INEL where testing is done on various reactor designs. One of test areas held a working reactor/engine room of what was to be built into the Nautilus. It was built to be in a pool so they could test the impact of pitching and yaw on the system. When I was in the USN as a nuclear machinist mate, this is reactor system (designated S5G) I qualified on for my “C” school back in the late ’80’s. It’s also what showed me that someone who is 6’3″, 210# doesn’t belong on subs. Yes I knocked myself out once, came close many more times and had a hard time squeezing into some of the areas.
So Ladies and Gentlemen, Technically Carter might of gone to school and actually worked with/on the same design as the Nautilus while not actually serving on the Nautilus. I don’t know if he did or not but if he did could see him using “I trained on the Nautilus” rather than go into detail of what he really did. Could of even been at that time he wasn’t allowed to talk about what was going on at INEL.
Of note, that’s also where the first test reactor was for the Army. It had a very nasty accident, killed several people and the Army wasn’t allowed to play with reactors again.

Reply to  philjourdan
May 17, 2017 2:45 pm

Note that environmentalists have been opposed to dams for decades now. This paper will just give them another “data” point.

Cyrus P Stell
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 17, 2017 4:36 pm

Oh the cognitive dissonance jangles from here. Of course the Green Mob will glom onto this declaring it as “proof” that not only should ALL dam construction cease NOW, but of course we should set about deconstructing (can I blow one up? That would be fun!) all existing dams regardless of how many people die as a result, and never acknowledge this is one more data point proving their beloved Climate Change models are so full of errors and omissions as to be worthless in forecasting anything!

seaice1
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
May 18, 2017 5:26 am

“Oh the cognitive dissonance jangles from here”
It certainly does.Cyrus P Stell demonstrates one of Scott Adams’s indicators for cognitive dissonace. “An absurd absolute”, which is a restatement of the other person’s reasonable position as an absurd absolute.

Tom Halla
May 17, 2017 11:47 am

What would seem to be the real effect is the change in biological use of the sediments from not reaching the ocean or staying in the natural river bed. It would seen to change mostly the rate and location of the use of the nutrients, not their eventual use.

MarkW
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 17, 2017 1:00 pm

The depth of the water could influence how quickly the nutrients are recycled.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Tom Halla
May 17, 2017 3:36 pm

All dams will silt up eventually. As they do there will be much wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth. When a dam ceases to provide electricity because its storage volume has been filled with silt or sand is it abandoned and the new soil left for agriculture or is a section blasted away to allow the accumulated silt and sand to be washed downriver to the next dam or the sea? I think that the most likely outcome is the removal of the turbines allowing the river to flow free, freeing up some some land for farming. The question then is where is the power that the country requires? Finally it will come back to nuclear power because there will be nothing else. So we might as well start on that now.

MarkW
Reply to  Roger Dewhurst
May 18, 2017 6:44 am

Since the power for the turbines comes from falling water, I don’t see how the reservoir silting up will prevent it from generating electricity.
Of course the lack of storage means that the amount of electricity generated will have to come from the flow of the water directly, with minimal ability to modulate output based on demand.

Logoswrench
May 17, 2017 11:48 am

Note: The novel method in no way mirrors reality and will be used to determine all future policy.

Bruce Cobb
May 17, 2017 11:54 am

Well dam. There we go again, changing the environment to suit us. With environuts, we’re dammed if we do, and dammed if we don’t.

Louis
May 17, 2017 12:00 pm

“We’re essentially increasing the number of artificial lakes every time we build a dam.”
So what’s the difference between an “artificial” lake and a natural one? And why are artificial lakes worse?
Are Beaver dams artificial or natural? Should beaver be exterminated to benefit the environment? If preventing a new lake is good, why isn’t draining an old lake good for the environment? Would it help to drain all the lakes in the world? Inquiring minds want to know.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Louis
May 17, 2017 12:23 pm

My thought exactly, Louis. However, the beaver population has been reduced considerably after beaver-felt hats became popular. Farmers aren’t too fond of the critters flooding their fields, either.

Reply to  Louis
May 17, 2017 12:54 pm

Artificial lakes use Aspertame.

Robert Anthony DUNCAN
Reply to  philjourdan
May 17, 2017 1:52 pm

Hehehe. 🙂
Nice one 😉

MarkW
Reply to  Louis
May 17, 2017 1:01 pm

At least the summary did not imply that new lakes were good or bad, just not fully understood.

Louis
Reply to  MarkW
May 17, 2017 1:42 pm

They may not have said it outright, but they certainly implied it by their tone. When you use loaded terms, such as saying that new dams have “significant impacts,” or “ongoing dam construction impedes the transport of nutrients…,” does that imply something good to you?

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
May 17, 2017 2:16 pm

No, it sounds like they are stating facts.

Reply to  Louis
May 17, 2017 2:22 pm

>>
Should beaver be exterminated to benefit the environment?
<<
Good point. They also cut down trees without the proper permits.
Jim

Reply to  Jim Masterson
May 17, 2017 3:42 pm

Here in Mill Creek, Wa,, beavers are causing trouble with flooding (https://www.heraldnet.com/news/troublesome-dams-in-mill-creek-fixed-by-the-beaver-deceiver/). The city is spending up to $6 million dollars to fix the problem. A couple of bullets would be far cheaper. Even trapping and moving would be cheaper. Nope, environmentalists like spending money on stupid and costly solutions (even if the “beaver deceivers” work).
Jim

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Jim Masterson
May 17, 2017 8:45 pm

Jim
There are hilarious stories about beaver dams on the Alaska highway during construction in the book ‘Six War Years, the sequel to the well known Ten Lost Years about the Depression in Canada.
The local Canadians made money blowing up beaver dams for the American contractors being careful never to kill the beavers. That made beavers cash cows.

May 17, 2017 12:01 pm

Carbon cycle, my ass!
The inland ponds and lakes created by dams change the water vapor content in the air in the area. Since water vapor is a stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, the study should have been about the water vapor concentration in different heights above the dams.

Keith J
Reply to  Steinar Jakobsen
May 17, 2017 1:36 pm

Drop in a bucket. Yes, lakes increase evaporative losses but compared to oceans..
The net effect of water vapor is negative through latent heat effect bypassing half of the atmosphere and through albedo increase.

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  Keith J
May 17, 2017 3:39 pm

I think that evaporation from a free water surface may well be less than evapotranspiration from fast growing vegetation!

tadchem
May 17, 2017 12:08 pm

The water trapped behind dams on earth covers 258,570 square kilometres: https://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/number-reservoirs-in-world.php
“… approximately 360 million square kilometers (140 million square miles), or 71 percent, are represented by the oceans and mariginal seas.”
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1997/EricCheng.shtml
258,570 square kilometers / 360 million square kilometers = 0.000718, or 0.072%.
A drop in the proverbial bucket…

Bryan A
Reply to  tadchem
May 17, 2017 12:33 pm

About twice CO2’s relative atmospheric concentration
Must be Trace Water

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 8:51 pm

Water vapour? It is up to 40,000 ppm.
Typical measurements are in the 10,000 range but it is highly variable. It radiates in the IR band like crazy. If you had IR vision, water would look as black as oil.

tty
Reply to  tadchem
May 17, 2017 12:54 pm

The Great Lakes are about 244,000 square kilometers. Throw in Lake Winnipeg (24,000 square kilometers) and you have topped all those 70,000 dams.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  tty
May 18, 2017 5:08 am

Then throw in the Caspian Sea, ……. 371,000 km2 (143,000 sq mi). …
The Caspian Sea, located in Kazakhstan. Russia, is the largest enclosed inland body of water on Earth by area.

Neil Jordan
May 17, 2017 12:08 pm

I am shocked, shocked at this research. The climate authorities insisted that the science was settled.

Bryan A
Reply to  Neil Jordan
May 17, 2017 2:24 pm

But it has settled…settled to the bottom of the effluence barrel

commieBob
May 17, 2017 12:10 pm

Dams have a big effect on the surrounding climate. link Because there are a lot of dams, they have an effect on the global climate. The irrigation resulting from dams also has an effect on the climate. link I’m guessing that the direct and indirect effects of the impounded water dwarf the effect of any CO2 dissolved in that water.

Louis
Reply to  commieBob
May 17, 2017 12:19 pm

“Dams have a big effect on the surrounding climate.”
But are such effects on the climate net positive or negative? Just because something has an effect on the climate, doesn’t mean it’s bad. That goes for CO2 as well. Why is it always assumed that any effect or any change has to be bad?

MarkW
Reply to  Louis
May 17, 2017 1:03 pm

That’s why they need to be paid to study the impact. To find out if it is good, bad or just different.

May 17, 2017 12:11 pm

Trap 1/5. Which means they don’t trap 4/5. Ditto other nutrients, as is related to water release thru hydro turbines and navigation locks. Much ado about very little. Another hyped pretty useless PhD thesis.

Rick C PE
Reply to  ristvan
May 17, 2017 1:51 pm

Apparently all the good subjects for a climatology PhD thesis were already used. They’ve been scraping the bottom of the barrel for years.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  ristvan
May 17, 2017 8:55 pm

A PhD thesis doesn’t have to be useful good, it has to be novel. I’d say the story finds a few novel things, but hardly unexpected.
Dams are net warming and that is a good thing. They help stabilise the temperature in continental climate regions.

mikewaite
May 17, 2017 12:12 pm

Perhaps this work can provide ammunition for those sceptical of the proposed Swansea tidal lagoon to be built between the outlets of rivers Neath and Tawe in south Wales .
The mean depth of the water at full tide, from the diagram in the link below , appears to be about 3m . Still for some of the time, easily warmed by the sun , a breeding ground for algae and mosquitos?
http://subseaworldnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Wales-Directors-Form-Swansea-Bay-Tidal-Lagoon-Advisory-Group.jpg
I know that corn mills have been driven by tidal power in the past , but this is a vastly different scale .
Have this group looked at tidal lagoons to allay my fears at a project too politically loaded to be turned down on economic grounds .

tty
Reply to  mikewaite
May 17, 2017 12:18 pm

Mosquitoes breed in fresh water.

Neil Jordan
Reply to  tty
May 17, 2017 1:39 pm

Except for the black salt marsh variety:
http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/AQUATIC/aedes_taeniorhynchus.htm
They have been found in CA coastal marsh areas, too.

pbweather
Reply to  tty
May 18, 2017 8:13 am

Not true. I have seen plenty of them in brine water in stagnant rock pools near the ocean in Australia.
http://medent.usyd.edu.au/arbovirus/mosquit/saltwet.htm

Roger Dewhurst
Reply to  pbweather
May 18, 2017 1:32 pm

And carry the Ross River virus.

bitchilly
Reply to  mikewaite
May 17, 2017 3:23 pm

i have a hard time believing the swansea tidal lagoon will ever be built.

John
May 17, 2017 12:14 pm

I see. Pick your favorite subject and either blame it on “climate change”, or say that it causes it. Then study it using confirmation bias to prove it.

Joel Snider
May 17, 2017 12:14 pm

I told you dams have been on the Greenie demolition list for decades now… although pretty much everything is, anymore.

Dave
May 17, 2017 12:14 pm

I wonder what the environmental impact of installing wind farms or solar arrays is? Seems like solar arrays reduce the ability to grow vegetation that could be a carbon sink, and wind farms cut down carbon sinks…

Bryan A
Reply to  Dave
May 17, 2017 12:37 pm

At least Land Mounted Solar Arrays can provide shade for the Desert Tortise during the Mid Day Sun (about the most they really can do)

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Dave
May 17, 2017 8:58 pm

A two megawatt wind turbine has about 250 tons of materials that must be sourced, processed and transported. They have a huge environmental impact. They must also be backed up by, preferably, hydro power stations which require large dams.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
May 18, 2017 6:03 am

Is it not a fact that the aforesaid 250 tons of materials, per each wind turbine location, an increase in the total “Heat Island” infrastructure …. and thus a potential cause that exacerbates increases in near-surface air temperatures (AGW)?

Bulaman
May 17, 2017 12:15 pm

Personally I think that the area of land under irrigation is probably responsible. H2O is numero uno in the greenhouse and the massive expansion of land area with added H2O looks to correlate well with the (natural) changes occurring. No water = no food dilemma for the watermelons..

Bryan A
Reply to  Bulaman
May 17, 2017 12:38 pm

Not really a delima at all. Watermellons want fewer seeds anyway and would probably prefer all but themselves to be seedless

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 1:05 pm

Doctor’s have developed a procedure that can make guys seedless.

MarkW
Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 1:06 pm

and every guy in the room winces.

Bryan A
Reply to  Bryan A
May 17, 2017 2:25 pm

We’re talking about watermellons not seedless grapes

Hats off...
May 17, 2017 12:18 pm

“…reservoirs are poorly represented in current climate change models.”
I always knew climate models discriminated against dams. “Ribbons for everyone!” I say.

tty
May 17, 2017 12:21 pm

If reservoirs are so important, how about lakes. How any dams does it take to equal The Great Lakes? Or Lake Baikal? Are those less “poorly represented” in climate models?

Svend Ferdinandsen
Reply to  tty
May 17, 2017 1:23 pm

I wonder if wind turbines and solar cells are also badly represented in climate models?
I believe they are, so here you have a new study.

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  tty
May 17, 2017 9:00 pm

In South Africa there are only about five tiny lakes. The biggest would be barely a pond in Ontario. They do however have Great Dams instead. Massive ones. They definitely affect the local climate very positively.

Don K
May 17, 2017 12:23 pm

Well that’s that then. Those damn dams have to go.
To think… we might have saved the planet if we’d just let the Feather River take out that climate destroyer at Oroville.

May 17, 2017 12:29 pm

Gee another X causes climate change story.
Lets control/limit/remove X.
Oh teh stupidity of it all.
Andrew

Resourceguy
May 17, 2017 12:33 pm

So FDR did it, along with George Bush…..on whatever it is.

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights