Comments on: The Weekly Carboholic: Study says dams reduced sea level rise

By: Freedem

Freedem — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 03:10:16 +0000

A point not taken to note perhaps is that Dams are normally quite short term. Once built, sediment fills them fairly fast (say 50-100 years where the river is muddy) and so the gain is temporary.

Like the global cooling caused by burning jet fuel, It masks the issue at the front end but does not last even a tiny percentage as long as the warming forces

By: Russ Wellen

Russ Wellen — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:17:33 +0000

would have resulted in sea level increases that were 19% more

19%? Dam. I mean, damn.

Thanks again, Brian. Without you, I’d be totally environmentally ignorant. (Case in point: I always thought cyclone was another name for tornado!)

By: JS O'Brien

JS O'Brien — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:29:22 +0000

Yeah. Thanks Brian. Actually, there’s a heckuva lot of snow melt that can still be trapped in the Rockies, isn’t there? I know there have been controversies in the past over forming resevoirs that can then be used to pipe water at least along the Front Range. On the west slope, that might reduce water flowing into the Colorado, but if the people of Las Vegas, Phoenix, and LA go thirsty, I’m fine with that .

By: www.buzzflash.net

www.buzzflash.net — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:22:17 +0000

The Weekly Carboholic: Study says dams reduced sea level rise…

A new study says sea level rise would have been 19% more last century if it weren’t for large dams storing water on land; tropical cyclones may not become more common as a result of global heating; making DVDs out of thin air; CO2 sequestration may be…

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 15:10:42 +0000

JS – Maybe. I say that because, at the moment, the models of sea level rise specifically don’t include the amount of water stored on land behind dams. And we’re tracking the upper edge of the maximum IPCC range (see this image), well over the “expected” range of sea level rise. This means that we might track downward a little below that range if new dams become reality, but the question is how much.

Most of the viable dam sites in Europe and North America are already dammed up, and the U.S. is actually tearing down older and smaller dams faster than it’s building new ones. And the Western U.S., where there are LOTS of dams already, is not only pretty well dammed up but is also one of the regions in the world expected to dry out the most.

By: JS O'Brien

JS O'Brien — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:24:43 +0000

Hmmm. I’ve been wondering if I should buy stock for a long-term hold in engineering firms that specialize in building dams. My reasoning has been that, as rainfall patterns shift, population centers in areas of reduced rainfall will demand new dams, and that the pressure for the new dams will overcome environmental resistance. If that happens, it should mean that sea levels will rise less rapidly than most models predict, right?