Hot water kills half of Columbia River sockeye salmon

[n2doc]

BOISE, Idaho (AP) – More than a quarter million sockeye salmon returning from the ocean to spawn are either dead or dying in the Columbia River and its tributaries due to warming water temperatures.


Federal and state fisheries biologists say water that is 5 to 6 degrees warmer is wiping out at least half of this year’s returning population of the cold-water species.

Ritchie Graves of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says up to 80 percent of the population could ultimately perish.

Officials are trying to cool flows by releasing cold water from selected reservoirs.

Experts say drought and record heat this summer are behind the high water temperatures.

http://koin.com/2015/07/27/hot-water-kills-half-of-columbia-river-sockeye-salmon/

[Xolodno]

1. Son of a....

....that means less Salmon in the future. Bears, fisheries, native tribes, etc. rely on that. And Salmon runs are heavily managed as they are very important to the eco-system and jobs for local communities.

People just don't get it.

[silvershadow]

15. It is a large-scale extinction event unfolding. nt

[bvar22]

2. Are thee any Nuke Power Plants on the Colombia River?

Those can raise water temps a bunch.

[spanone]

3. from the article...Experts said drought and record heat this summer are behind the high water temper

[bvar22]

6. Yes, I read the article,

but I have one of those minds that don't trust the Media to tell the whole story.

So, are there water cooled Nuke plants on the Colombia River?
I'm curious.
I'm NOT blaming any Nuke Plant as yet.
Inquiring minds want to know.

[dbackjon]

13. No they don't raise them a bunch

Any more than any other type of power plant does.


And if they were the culprit, why just this summer?


Why not every summer?




Or maybe, just maybe, the hot, dry weather REALLY is to blame.


And if we had expanded nuclear power in the 70's, we'd be in much better shape, climate wise.


Just a thought.

[bvar22]

19. ...and "maybe" it is a combination.

Until we KNOW whether these plants are located on the Colombia River, and how much temp rise they are responsible for, our discussion is nothing by speculation,
BUT the place to start the inquiry is:
Are there water cooled Nuke Plants on the Colombia River?
A question you seem reluctant to answer directly.

Have you ever heard of synergy?
I'll explain it to you if you haven't.

[Brother Buzz]

26. Heat from the Columbia Generating Station is dissipated into the air

The Columbia Generating Station features six low-profile fan-driven cooling towers. Each tower cascades clean warmed water, a byproduct of water heat exchanging with steam after leaving a turbine, down itself and subsequently cools the warmed water via a combination of evaporation and heat exchange with the surrounding air.

[bvar22]

57. Nothing EVER "dissipates".

It is still there. That HEAT is STILL in our atmosphere.
just like Corexit is still in the Gulf despite the claims by BP that it has "dissipated",
ans so is the oil spewed out of that well.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. But the point is, CGS uses the atmosphere as its ultimate heat sink, not the river.

So the air temp within a certain distance of the reactor has nothing to do with what happened to the fish.

Now, if the plant went catastrophically off-line and scrammed, then yes, it would START using the river as its ultimate heat sink.

In the sense you asked the question, that reactor is NO DIFFERENT than any other centralized thermal generating station, such as coal, gas, etc. They all generate heat, they all have waste heat. They all generate I would think, similar amounts of heat for similar KW output electric.

[bvar22]

61. I disagree.

Nuke plants operate at a much higher temperature than ordinary coal fired plants.
The HEAT never "dissipates", but is stored in our atmosphere. Atmospheric temperatures affect rive and ocean waters.

EVERYTHING is connected to EVERYTHING else.
I doubt that Nuke Plants (themselves) are significantly raising the temp of the Colombia directly,
but combined with everything else in our polluted environment and Environmental Warming...it certainly contributes.
To deny this would be absurd.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. Watt for watt, they do not.

They simply produce more. Higher capacity. Unless broken, they don't run hitter, watt for watt.

[bvar22]

69. So you admit that NUke Plants run hotter.

Thanks.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. No, watt for watt they are similar. You don't obviate a watt for watt replacement by

Pretending one is different than the other by examining heat output without considering electricity output.

They don't run in the megawatt range for fun. They do it because that power is USED. replace with Gas and you get about the same thermal output.

You know how central thermal power production works, right?

Nuclear produces more waste heat than solar or wind or even hydro. It does not produce more than gas, coal, etc. because you don't get to magically pretend demand can go unmet if you sub out nuclear for gas/coal as if they produce less thermal output. They don't.

[Brother Buzz]

64. And heat is never radiated into space

If heat didn't escape into space, life as we know it would not exist.

[bvar22]

73. Some is radiated into space.

Unfortunately, much is reflected BACK into our atmosphere by pollution, CO2, Methane, and a cocktail of other chemicals, including heat discharges like mentioned above.
and it gets worse every day.
You HAVE heard of Global Warming and Climate Change?
Yes?

If not, I can refer you to some reading material.

[AtheistCrusader]

77. Human thermal output doesn't add shit to the heat budget of the earth.

It's the amplifying effect we are having by adding to the insulating greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere that is the problem. You release that much co2 into an atmosphere with zero human heat output and you still have a warming problem.

You are fixated on a data point that is entirely drowned in natural variance, and not even related to the issue, and most importantly, an issue you don't understand.

[bvar22]

84. Quote:

"Human thermal output doesn't add shit to the heat budget of the earth."

Then you must belong to the exclusive club of Republicans that insist that Global Climate Change/Warming
has NOTHING to do with human activity.

Nice friends you keep.
What are you going to tell your grandchildren?

[AtheistCrusader]

85. That is some cheap shit right there. Can't refute the point so you decide I must

Be a climate change denier, even though I just specified the single largest anthropogenic forcing factor on our climate.

I reiterate, you don't know what you're talking about.

I used the term heat budget for a reason. Geothermal accounts for 0.03% of the earths surface heat budget. 99.7% is from the Suns input. You do the fucking math on a few piddly 1gw thermal output reactors.

And come on back after you finish middle school science

(That 0.03% is 47 terawatts, in case you need a hand. )

[bvar22]

91. Phew. Thanks.

All the scientists are telling us that if we keep adding CO2 and other Green House Gasses to our atmosphere,
it will raise the temperatures.
Nice to know there is ONE here on DU with the truth that Human Activity does not affect Global Climate Change.

[AtheistCrusader]

96. I never said human activity doesn't affect climate change. In fact, I specified the opposite.

I have also specified the mechanism by which we do. You seem fixated on a mechanism that is irrelevant.

In fact, that heat output from reactors is trivial twice. Same way the carbon output of your presumably wood stove in your cabin is. You're just accelerating the process, putting that carbon on a treadmill. Nuclear reactors slightly accelerate the decay heat of the earth. The uranium and other elements we refine into nuclear fuel, and then 'burn' in a criticality, is just accelerating what would have been released as decay waste heat anyway. As I mentioned earlier, the earth's heat budget includes 0.03% from the earth itself, which is radioactive decay heat. Around 47 terawatts.

Humanity burns, all total, about 17 terawatts. That's electrical, not thermal. So, I'll be super-generous to you, more generous than anyone in the history of internet forum arguments ever. I won't deduct from that 17 terawatts any non-earth-thermal-budget contributing power sources. No geothermal, no hydro (considerable percentage), no solar, whether PV or Concentrating Thermal, no wind power, no tidal, no biomass, nothing. I deduct nothing. And then, I'll DOUBLE IT. Say, assuming for thermal loss/inefficiency converting thermal output to electrical output.

That would put human activity at 34 terawatts thermal. That's 86% of the earth's radioactive decay heat portion of the planet's heat budget. Or, LESS than 0.03% of the planet's total heat budget.

That's less than the yearly variance in solar output, of which, makes up more than 99% of the remaining heat budget of planet earth.

The heat, output by those reactors, is less than a popcorn fart compared to the total energy in the system.


But we ARE IN DEEP SHIT. Global Climate Change is well underway, and you need to be stupid and or blind to miss it. On that, we probably agree. But the MECHANISM is insulating gasses and materials that contribute to a greenhouse effect. NOT the heat emitted by various reactors and power plants of other sorts. The greenhouse effect is a force multiplier. CO2, Methane, you name it. It's wrapping our system in a blanket. We're robbing the planet of radiative cooling.

Heat moves off the surface through several means. The most important of which is evaporative. You don't get evaporative cooling if you don't have rainfall. We have vast swaths of the US in drought conditions because changes in climate have diverted atmospheric systems/rainfall to other regions. The other component of the atmospheric heat engine is thermal infrared energy. That's the part that gets reflected back at us when we insulate the earth with shit like CO2. That's where you get your anthropogenic forcing on the climate, leading to changes in climate patterns, things like the droughts we're seeing, and rising record temps in localized areas that used to be damper, used to have more evaporative cooling effect, etc.

You're pissed about statistical noise, which amounts to a couple calories worth of heat generated by a body, when the main effect, the main problem, is wrapping that body in thickening layers of insulation, driving a measurable spike in total heat budget by reducing the radiative cooling of the body.

In other words, you're after the wrong thing.

AND to score some points, you keep building strawmen and attributing completely false shit to what I am saying. That's highly obnoxious. It would be nice if you could argue a point without stooping to lying about my position. Climate change is real. It is human induced. It's just by way of a mechanism you don't seem to understand.

[snooper2]

90. Ever smoke a bowl then put your hand around it to cool it down?

[hueymahl]

86. +1 An example of someone with good intentions being confused by facts.

Thanks for trying to remind and educate that facts matter.

[Brother Buzz]

80. So nothing EVER "dissipates" unless it does dissipate, right?

bvar22 (36,695 posts)
57. Nothing EVER "dissipates".

It is still there. That HEAT is STILL in our atmosphere.
just like Corexit is still in the Gulf despite the claims by BP that it has "dissipated",
ans so is the oil spewed out of that well.

[bvar22]

93. I was going to let that go, but since the snark, I decided to correct you.

Heat that escapes our atmosphere does not "dissipate" either.
It keeps going.
Did you see the photos of earth from Saturn?
That was "heat" escaping our atmosphere. Still there. Still going strong..
It will go on forever,
but I'm not too worried about Saturn.

The heat I worry about is the ever growing amount of heat being reflected back into our environment.
Do you deny this?

I can see the changes.
Can you?
I believe we are already past the tipping point,
so have fun!

[AtheistCrusader]

97. Oh, so suddenly you're worried about reflectivity of the atmosphere rather than human thermal activi

ty?

Way to switch horses mid-stream.

[bvar22]

101. No horse switch. That has always been my contention.

You are grasping at straws,
and you are the one who ran to hypothetical.

Any fool can see that production of HEAT reflected back by Green House Gasses WILL raise temps on Planet earth.
THAT is what I have been arguing this entire thread,
YOU have been denying it with obfuscation like coal plants don't burn as hot as Nuke Plants among other BS.


The odd thing is that we agree.
Lets get some temp probes in the water, and a non-corporate research staff to find out WHAT is causing the rise in heat in the Colombia River.
I would hate to see the Colombia Gorge turn into a pollute cess pool of dead fish and water too hot to swim.
One of my favorite places on Earth.

It is LOGICAL to look at the NUKE, other Power Plants, and Industry to determine IF they are contributing to the rise in temps.
Lets get that done....until then , all we have is speculation and denial.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. Now you're just completely lost. Just stop.

Anyone can read up the thread and see what you're doing now.

I said the opposite of what you just claimed. Watt for watt, coal and nuclear burn just as hot. Same for gas. Same for biomass.

Just stop with the bullshit.

[bvar22]

104. Watt for watt is a dodge.

Nuke plants burn much HOTTER, and, watt for watt, coal produce more ash, CO2, CO and a whole host of other pollutants.
You are forcing a false equivalence.

YES. Nuke Plants burn HOTTER and need BIGGER cooling systems. I forced you to admit that up thread.

I asked legitimate questions at the top of this thread. (the beginning of Scientific Inquiry),
and you have done nothing but try (unsuccessfully) to obfuscate and hi-Jack.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. No, they don't burn hotter.

A coal plant and a nuclear plant with the same wattage baseplate capacity burn about the same temp.

You don't get to pretend that higher capacity=hotter.

If you replaced the Columbia generating station with the coal plant we turned off last year, it would have the same thermal output. not more or less. The same.

You don't fix anything by turning off a reactor and replacing the lost capacity with central thermal generation of ANY type.

[bvar22]

110. Again, you are trying to rig the results with your "watt for watt' BS.

Lets try it this way:
This should be easy for you...a yes or No answer will suffice.

Do Nuke Plants require larger and more efficient cooling systems than coal fired plants?
Yes or No.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Not for plants with the same wattage output.

If you want to play games and pretend a 200mw coal plant is cooler than a 1000mw nuclear plant, then I get to substitute a 100mw reactor and show the coal plant is 'hotter' than nuclear.

The only time a nuclear plant requires more elaborate or more reliable cooling, is when it has suffered a catastrophic failure and is scrammed. That's not normal operating state and something CGS has never done to the Columbia river therefore isn't a contributing factor to the dead fish.

To serve the same demand a coal and nuclear plant will have pretty much identical load on the river.

[bvar22]

114. Since you have constructed an iron block around your head,

lets try it this way:

Is it harder to put out a fire in the generating room of a Coal Fired Plant,
or in the generating room of a Nuke plant where the heat melts concrete?

Can you honestly answer ONE question in the thread?


The Lesson of Fukushima
As long as we are using NUke Plants,
Fukushima, and worse, will happen again,
and again,
and AGAIN!

DO you dare to contest the above?
Please Proceed.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. Now you're confused about concentration.

You're really bad at this. Just stop. Thermal output is thermal output. Nuclear and coal have VERY similar efficiency, meaning, they generate the same number of btu's (heat) to boil water and turn a turbine and produce X value of watts. That also means they have similar values of waste heat.

Nuclear power has other RISKS and is not preferable to decentralized non-thermal power generation. It is not generating more heat and thereby more waste heat to turn a turbine than a coal plant of same wattage output.

[bvar22]

131. That is circular reasoning.

IT has always taken a specific amount of energy to raise the temp of water 1degee centigrade.
That is called a "calorie", and it will always be a unit of measure. to say that equal units of measure are equal is circular reasoning.

I"ll make a deal with you.
You find a coal fired plant that has failed,
and show me where the fire has burned through the bottom of the boiler, burned through any and all containment structures, burned through the concrete and iron foundations, and burned through the bed rock,
and I will admit that a coal fire is just as hot as nuclear fission.

Deal?

[AtheistCrusader]

132. You're just spewing nonsense.

The cooling capacity of a coal and nuclear fired boiler of the same wattage output are similar. VERY similar. That's not circular.

The mode of failure between a nuclear reactor's core, and a coal boiler don't speak to the cooling water requirements at all. Not even a little bit.

You know what the word 'concentration' means right? The pile of a reactor is smaller than the burners of a coal plant. That doesn't mean the total heat is different.

Reactors aren't sized for fun, they are sized to meet demand. If you want to reduce the cooling water requirements, changing the generator type does nothing. Because you'd still build the coal plant to the same capacity. It would need pretty much the same amount of water because it has the same waste heat to deal with.

A meltdown of a reactor core doesn't mean the total heat under normal operation is any different. Chernobyl was rated at 1gw thermal output. When it went supercritical, it was pumping out north of 30gw thermal before the instrumentation failed and it exploded. That's not normal operation, and not something the cooling system of the plant was EVER designed to cope with.

You're just being fucking silly hoping to score some stupid point. Knock it off.

[bvar22]

139. Is it harder to put out a fire in a Coal Fired Plant,

or in a Nuclear Plant?

You are the one who is rally bad at this.

Find me a Coal Plant where the coal fire melted the bottom of the boiler,
melted through all containment, and melted into the bedrock,
and I will admit that coal burns just as hot as nuclear fission.

[AtheistCrusader]

141. I just explained that to you.

Chernobyl didn't use 30gw thermal worth of water cooling because it wasn't designed to operate at that level. Neither is a U.S. Reactor of any type.

Stop trying to substitute a disaster failure mode for normal operation.

If CGS was actively melting down right now, you'd have a point. But only then.

You'd still have a lot of work to explain how the reactor was raising water tens hundreds of miles upstream.

[bvar22]

144. Learn to expect FAILURE in Nuke Plants.

It HAS happened, and WILL happen again.
People like you don't consider that kind of stuff,
and THAT is why we have the Chernobles, 3-MIle Islands, and Fukushimas.

The Lesson from Fukushima
As long as we continue to use Nukes,
Fukushima WILL happen again,
and again,
and AGAIN.

[AtheistCrusader]

145. Which of course has nothing to do with the dead fish in the op or the river temp.

Nothing at all.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. Hermiston natural gas power plant downriver from the Columbia generating station

Cranks out 475mw. CGS cranks out 1,100mw.

Hermiston has about the same thermal load as half of one CGS. You wouldn't bring any thermal relief to the river by replacing CGS with two shiny new copies of Hermiston.

[bvar22]

115. Stop with the Bull Shit?

I just called for independent Scientific Research to find out what is causing the heat rise in the Colombia River,
and suggested that Industry would be the first place to look.


...and you call Me lost?
(pure projection, and not done well.
You won't fool anybody).


BTW: You never answered the question of HOW you heat your house?
Scared?... Hypocrite?..... Polluter?....GreenHouse Gas generator?

It is EASY to talk the talk, as you do,
but harder to walk the walk, like me and my wife.
I DARE you to join those of us who have reduced our carbon footprint and actually work with the environment.

Something a small as this can be an act of revolution:


Join those working for a solution!

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Post 111, made 40 minutes before you posted this.

I answered your question. Why couldn't you find it.

[bvar22]

129. Calling for Scientific Research to examine the Colombia River and the rise in heat...

is "Completely Lost",
well, maybe according to you,
but rational people will agree with me.

[AtheistCrusader]

130. The reactor, and the larger number/watts of gas fired generators on the Columbia are monitored by

the EPA.

The problem is this heatwave/drought. It's not an unknown. Your explicit fixation on reactors you didn't even know about shows your bias, and how silly this entire fork was.

There are a variety of well known factors, and it doesn't take 'scientific research' to figure it out. You plan that human activity in advance, set limits, etc, because it's too little too late otherwise if you try doing it when the fish are already dying.

But hey, scream about fukushima a little more why don't you. In a thread TOTALLY UNRELATED to nuclear power related disasters.

[NCTraveler]

138. You have some serious patience. Nt

[CreekDog]

126. if you want to take the focus off global warming, you're doing a great job

you just can't allow that the conventional explanation is true. there has to be a conspiracy for you in this case.

is that scientific? nope.

jeez.

[bvar22]

140. BS.

Scientific is looking at ALL the circumstances that can affect the river, including industry located on or close to the river.
THAT is science, not someone saying that "Its been hot this Summer.

Those of you living on or near the Colombia River better HOPE that scientists can find an industry or other man made source of this heat,
because if not.....welcome to the New Normal.
Its HOT, and there is nothing you can do about it.

[dbackjon]

40. LOL - and all the cigarettes people smoke cause the temperature to rise in the summer

I don't think there is anything that you could explain to me


Again, why your obsession with nuke plants? You do understand that other types of power plants use cooling systems as well?


And as was shown below, there no nuke plants on the Columbia that discharge into the Columbia



So no, the place to start the inquiry is NOT nuke plants.



It is a hot summer, and drought. Pretty simple, really.


I think you need to restock your tinfoil.

[questionseverything]

46. of course nuke plants increase the water temp

of whatever water source is used as their cooling pond

the folks that deny it are not credible

hindsight should be 20/20.....certainly the combination of the hot dry summer and the power plants runoff was the culprit,in what proportions we do not know

the same thing is happening with the ocean currents and fukishima's runoff

[LanternWaste]

52. Have you heard of Spurious Correlations?

"Have you ever heard of synergy?
I'll explain it to you if you haven't."

Have you heard of Spurious Correlations?
I'll explain it to you if you haven't...

(six of one, half a dozen of the other-- and each as petulantly irrelevant as the other)

[bvar22]

65. Yes, I've heard of "spurious correlations".

Those are eliminated by research.
Can you cite the research that proves Nuke Plants have no correlation to the rise in temperatures?
No?

The my "questions" are NOT spurious.
If you supply some research of educated opinions from credible engineers and scientists (no, not from the Nuke Industry liars) about the crisis in the Colombia Gorge, I might be tempted to believe you,
but , so far, all you have supplied is snark,
and that counts for NOTHING.

Thank gawd for the people who ask questions.

[hueymahl]

87. Ah yes, requesting someone prove a negative

Classic logical fallacy http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/146-proving-non-existence

Can you prove that dreaming children sleeping along the river don't increase its temperature? I have never seen an empirical study that refutes that theory, therefore it must have relevance.

I get it, you hate nuclear power. That is a wholly other discussion. Not related to the river, however (although if you really want to go there, there are some damn good arguments that more nuclear power would have helped to mitigate greenhouse gasses, which may have mitigated the heat wave in that area.

[bvar22]

106. Pure BS.

Nowhere did I ask you to prove a negative.

"Yes, I've heard of "spurious correlations".

"Spurious correlations" are eliminated by research.
Can you cite the research that proves Nuke Plants have no correlation to the rise in temperatures?
No?

The my "questions" are NOT spurious.
If you supply some educated research opinions from credible engineers and scientists (no, not from the Nuke Industry liars) about the crisis in the Colombia Gorge, I might be tempted to believe you,
but , so far, all you have supplied is snark,
and that counts for NOTHING.

Thank gawd for the people who ask questions.research opinions from credible engineers and scientists (no, not from the Nuke Industry liars) about the crisis in the Colombia Gorge, I might be tempted to believe you,
but , so far, all you have supplied is snark,
and that counts for NOTHING.

Thank gawd for the people who ask questions.

The above is the entirety of my pose.
Does ANYONE see me asking someone to prove a negative?
Asking for research from credible sources is NOT asking one to "prove a negative"

[hueymahl]

123. Does anyone see you asking someone to prove a negative? Ahh, yes

Third sentence down.

Can you cite the research that proves Nuke Plants have no correlation to the rise in temperatures?
No?

In fact, there is overwhelming research that shows nuclear power reduces the rise in global temperatures because it has zero greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever heat is generated in creating that power is so tiny relative to the offset of no greenhouse gas emissions as to be the equivalent of fart in a hurricane.

So I will throw it back to you. Can you cite ONE credible bit of research (heck, even a magazine article will do) that shows that the heat generated by a nuclear power plant contributes to global warming?

BTW, in case anyone is wondering, I am not attempting to defend nuclear. I would prefer to see it phased out in lieu of renewables. But until then, lets at least stick to reality. Asserting provably false facts does not help the progressive cause.

[bvar22]

134. Yes.

Everything that uses our atmosphere as a "Heat Sink" (quote) as the Nuke Plants on the Colombia River do, (see above) contribute to Global Warming.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. Evaporative cooling and radiative cooling are entirely different components of the atmospheric heat

engine.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

[bvar22]

155. Did NOT you say that these plants use our atmosphere as a "heat sink".

Every time I have used a heat sink, it has gotten hot.
THAT is what it is for, and WHY the name "heat sink".

Please explain this magic where the atmosphere can be used as a heat sink, but does not get hotter.

[AtheistCrusader]

156. By way of evaporation. Yes.

Not radiative. Compared to the energy the sun puts into the system, the earth's radiative heat is infinitesimal, and our addition on top of that is even smaller than that. The earth and ALL power plants worldwide don't even add up to one tenth of one percent.

But those coal plants? Those gas fired boilers? The evaporative cooling towers aren't the problem. The problem is the CO2 they emit.

Kill every last calorie of human heat output, doesn't matter, the earth's warming will continue and not deviate from its current trajectory. The problem, for the umpteenth time, is that heat can't escape the system by way of radiating into space as easily now. And that problem is going to increase.

Evaporative cooling is what is MISSING from the system that is locally killing the fish. No rainfall because the changes in CLIMATE have shifted the rains elsewhere. The power plants aren't occupying cooling capacity the region could use. The natural system is broken. If you add rainfall to the local region, the temp drops and the fish live. It's that simple. Turn off every single power plant, the fish still die. They are dying upriver from the power plants right now. UPRIVER. on rivers that don't even HAVE power plants of any type.

We need the carbon output to cease, so the climate can stabilize and the prevailing weather patterns return rain to the region, restarting the evaporative cooling leg of the local atmospheric heat engine. Then temps drop, then the fish live.

Evaporative cooling is a victim of radiative warming, because of the insulating greenhouse gasses putting us on a warming trend.

The rain is still falling, there's plenty of energy in the system. It's just not falling *here*, because of the changes in climate.

[hueymahl]

149. Ok, I'm going to try one more time

According to NASA, the Sun radiates 1.8 x 10^17 Joules/s, which is a really, really big number (1,800,000,000,000,000,000). (see http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sun.html#sunenergymass).

Mankind uses about 1/10,000 of that. Assuming ALL of that got converted to heat (it doesn't - the vast majority is converted to matter in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics), the heat generated by all sources of energy, including renewables, would amount to 0.001% of the total heat generated by the sun.

This is very simplistic physics, and I have likely overestimated the heat input from all mankind sources. But it does go to show that the impact of any power plant on global warming due to heat radiation from the plant is so insignificant as to be irrelevant.

Greenhouse gasses, that is another story.


And BTW, I don't appreciate the ad hominem attacks (in your other response to my last post), but you have shown you like to assert logical fallacies, so I guess it is par for the course.

[bvar22]

143. I would believe you,

.....if you had been honest about the problems disposing of "Nuclear Waste".
Since you "overlooked" that part, I discount everything you posted.


But upthread, one poster stated that the Nuke Plant on the Colombia used the "atmosphere as a heat sink".
What is the obvious effect of using the atmosphere as a Heat Sink?....x1000?

[AtheistCrusader]

146. Total human energy output was covered already. Less than 0.03%

Last edited Fri Jul 31, 2015, 02:19 AM - Edit history (1)

Of the planet's heat budget.

So, 'what is going to happen' is 'nothing that wasn't happening anyway'.

You really should learn the difference between evaporative cooling and radiative cooling and why ONE is related to climate change and the other is a victim of climate change.

The THERMaL output of humanity is t even signal noise in a natural system. The CO2\methane output of humanity is a REALLY BIG FUCKIG DEAL.

[AtheistCrusader]

133. Is the industry fucking around pumping hot water uphill to kill the fish?

Because that's what you'd need to explain thermal output from the reactors killing these poor fish on the Deschutes and Snake tributaries, which is where they are actually dying.

The news reports keep saying 'Columbia river', but the monitored die-offs are actually occurring places properly called the 'Columbia Basin' well upstream of the CGS.

Not hard, if you know where the fish are dying, and where the reactor is.

Not unexpected that you don't know that, I suppose, since you came into this thread apparently not even knowing if there WAS a reactor involved at all.

[bvar22]

169. Not a Double Negative.

If a thorough Scientific Study finds NO correlation....that is still a relevant positive result,
and is published in the Journals.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. Nuclear power plants can and must be a contributor to the rise in temp.

But not because of thermal output. They contribute because nuclear power is in fact, not carbon neutral after all. The nuclear fuel cycle depends on a Great deal of petrochemical activity, all of it releasing co2. It also depends on grid tied power from large central thermal plants like coal or oil as backup power to operate.

It is arguable they eat monies better spent on carbon neutral power and also contribute to engineering a power economy more friendly to concentrated thermal generation like coal, and hostile to distributed renewables.

[bvar22]

92. Thanks for your reasonable answer.

My wife and I switched to a renewable, Carbon Neutral source of heat for our cabin in 2007.

[CreekDog]

127. Congratulations, you steered a conversation about global warming, a well-founded explanation

into a discussion about the affects of nuclear plants on salmon.

congratulations.

instead of talking about what the scientists are telling us, we are all distracted by something else.

you had a choice, you made it.

there are a handful of posters who when global warming is brought up, try to blame nuclear plants for some of the effects.

it is so effective in derailing the conversation that i'm surprised fossil fuel corporations don't employ it in order to be sure conversations don't stay focused on global warming for very long.

i don't think you're doing it that for the same motive, but the effect is the same. we could be talking about the effects of human caused climate change in the Pacific Northwest and Intermountain West, but we aren't, because you wanted to talk about something that is not only unproven, but has no evidence supporting that explanation for the loss of salmon.

[bvar22]

136. All I did was ask a question.

You supplied the paragraphs of supposition, bad connections...and plain BS.
Throughout the thread, I have called for independent Scientific Inquiry into the heat rise in the Colombia River.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. Because you don't know what is there, or why.

That's a problem that can be solved by dispelling your own ignorance about how many reactors there are on the river, where they are, water temps up and downstream from the reactor, and temps on non-Columbia main flow upstream.

All of which is available to you.

[bvar22]

153. This entire thread STARTED with the killing of Salmon on the Colombia River,

and the heat rise in the water temps.
If you will go back, you will see that I am the ONLY participant calling for independent Scientific Research into the causes of the heat rise in the Colombia (and that includes you.)
The FIRST place to look is at the power plants and any major industry located on the Colombia.

You can go play with blocks or something. I am worried about the sudden heat rise, and want to know the facts.
Global Warming IS man-made.
...and you (and a few others) think that looking for man-made industry as a source of heat on the Colombia River is foolish?


I can show you several rivers where man made industry and riverside Power Plants have changed the biology and ecology of major rivers.

[AtheistCrusader]

157. The rivers are over-temp upriver of any power plant of any type.

Independent analysis is already in place and the problem is obvious to all but the climate change deniers.

You're nibbling around the edges a bit focusing on the cooling needs of these plants, but the plants can't sent hot water upriver, so it's ok if *you* personally don't understand. Your understanding is not required.

We know what we have to do. We know the clock is ticking. We know it's getting worse every second.

We just can't convince everyone. No independent analysis will convince the holdouts. It's already been done. They don't want to be convinced. They want to wait till the problem is undeniable, and then blame someone else.

The heat output of the plants isn't a problem. The co2 is. Turn off the 3.2gw worth of gas fired capacity on the river if you want. THAT represents millions of tons of co2 and a direct attack upon the actual problem.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. The amount of heat any power generating station is allowed to put into the river is carefully regula

ted by the EPA for precisely this ecological reason, and if there is a contention, the fish win. The power plant is forced to shut down.

Brown's Ferry suffered this sort of problem last year. Discharge water was too hot, EPA regs say shut down, and they did.

[bvar22]

62. So it IS possible for the heat discharge from a Nuke Plant to destroy a river's ecology.

Thanks!
Those above will disagree with you.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Not in the United States, no.

[bvar22]

70. Oh Yes!

The EPA has not been captured by the Industries that they are supposed to regulate.
I'm sure they will protect us all,
and never, never look forward or take pay offs when they see crimes.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. In this case the limits and enforcement are public record.

Took a while and a lot of public input to put those safeguards in place. You're not discounting that, are you?

[bvar22]

78. I've live in the USA for over 60 years,

The UDSA has been captured by Monsanto (Obama Appointments)

The FDA has also been captured by Monsanto (Obama Appointments)

Do you really believe that the EPA is not influenced by the Power & Oil Corporations?
I don't.

Public Records....we've all seen those before.
I'm sure there are honest players, but they are far outnumbered by those just looking for a buck,
and overwhelmed by the immense job facing them.

My cynicism is well earned by watching these people for over 60 years.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. Anyone can stick a temp probe in those rivers and verify.

Anyone can notice dead fish and ask questions. State interests are stacked against federal.

Little easier to prove and settle than some suspicion about a gmo modification at some obscure edit in some creatures genome.

[bvar22]

94. And that is ALL iI have done...

...asked the questions.
Thank gawd for the Question Askers.

BTW: We use a carbon neutral, renewable source of heat for our cabin,
and all GMOs, and non naturally occurring fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides,
as well as other toxic chemicals are forever banned from our little hilltop.

My wife is a two time cancer survivor.
Her cancer has been in remission since we moved here and banned toxic chemicals and factory food.

[AtheistCrusader]

98. What's your carbon neutral heat? Wood?

If you're burning wood, you're no better than a reactor. The earth was going to emit that thermal energy over time as decay heat, but we compress the timeline by refining it into fuel, putting it into criticality by geometrical arrangement, producing the heat rapidly.

You compress the wood the same way. (Forests reproduce by way of fire on a natural timescale, just like the earth radiates radioactive decay heat.)

If you're using solar or wind, then sure, not contributing to that heat budget beyond what it took to make the equipment you use.

[bvar22]

99. Are you burning coal, nuke or petroleum products for heat?

Wood is the best carbon neutral source available. We have a 10 acre wood lot, of which we cut, haul and split
some of the best Hickory and Oak for our heat. WE DO use a chain saw to cut the trees, but we split by maul & wedges. Our total heating bill last year was about $12.00. Admittedly, this is not a solution for the cities, one reason why we moved.

As far as your statement that: "If you're burning wood, you're no better than a reactor.."
That is not well thought out.
We will NEVER have a Fukushima at our little cabin, and our electricity costs pennies to the $100 dollars compared to the cost of Nuclear Power.

The Lesson from Fukushima:

If we keep using Nukes,
Fukushima WILL happen again,
and again,
and again.

...but not at MY house.

[AtheistCrusader]

100. Unrelated issue.

We were talking about climate, heat and greenhouse insulation-wise. My 'no better than' is clearly within the context of thermal output. Disingenuous to suggest otherwise.

That said, Don't pretend your logging can't cause downstream environmental issues. See Oso, Wa.

[bvar22]

108. Again, your imagination replaces reality.

FAIL.
We don't "log". We are very selective, and are very careful not to damage our property, our future firewood, or the downstream creek.


SEE: bvar22's and Starkraven's little hilltop in the Woods.


BTW: Doesn't the majority of that timber cut in Washington (soft wood) get loaded on ships exported to China,
doesn't it?

I noticed you completely dodged my question above.
Afraid to answer the question?
How do you heat your home?
I have been completely open & honest. What else have you squirreled away that you don't want to put in print?


and I'll close with this (again) in larger print so you can see it.

[font size=3]The Lesson of Fukushima
as long as we use Nuke Plants,
FUkushima WILL happen again,
and again,
and AGAIN,
until we are no more.

[AtheistCrusader]

111. My home is 100% powered by hydroelectric through a local co-op.

If the local generating station goes offline we could purchase power from Puget power which would be a blend of hydroelectric, wind, and nuclear. Mostly hydro.

Normally hydroelectric has implications for co2 and fish, but ours does not because it does not utilize a reservoir (so no rotting vegetation releasing co2) and fish can't get upstream naturally anyway.

I didn't dodge your question, I pointed out you are spinning away from your initial bullshit that the reactor CGS is contributing problematic ally to the dead fish on the Columbia. It's not. Nor is it contributing to global climate change by way of thermal output.

Nuclear has co2 emission problems and incredible safety risks, but that in no way helps your argument up thread.

[bvar22]

120. Another falsehood.

You can't seem to get very far without posting complete BS.

#1 Please check every post above and find the one where I said:

" the reactor CGS is contributing problematic ally to the dead fish on the Columbia."

YOUR words, and YOUR prevarication.

I only asked if it was possible, and should be the object of a scientific investigation.

YOU are the one having trouble with the truth.

You owe me an apology for posting lies in my name,
and a retraction of your made up post.


BTW: That is is sign of a loser,..... making stuff up about another member, and posting it to DU,
but if you don't care about your credibility, well, go on like you are.

[AtheistCrusader]

122. You started lying and misrepresenting in post 69 so don't play the wounded animal.

Last edited Thu Jul 30, 2015, 09:49 AM - Edit history (2)

You started passive aggressively pointing the finger at nuclear power in post 2 and 19.

You told me earlier that I was a climate change denier. THAT was a lie. You never walked it back. Get to apologizing and explain your bizarre fixation on ONE nuclear reactor with 1/3 the thermal output of the gas plants on the Columbia.

That's right. you want to know how fucking oblivious you are? There's about 3x as much gas thermal generation drawing cooling water from the Columbia, as the 1100mw CGS does. THREE TIMES. Uses, watt for watt, just as much cooling water as the reactor. Every day, all day. Each individual plant is around 250-300mw, but the cooling water need is just as large, watt for watt. Total generation is 3,100mw, excluding Goldendale, which draws from Columbia tributary groundwater and not the river itself, and excluding Biomass even though they have the same cooling method/requirement. Gas and nuclear both generate waste heat, they both need cooling for the condensers to function. They just differ in HOW they make the water boil. But BEYOND the fuel, the physics of the energy involved is the same: boiling water/steam driven turbines.

BTU's are BTU's regardless of the heat source.

And you're in here stomping around about the nuclear power plant with no clue it useS about 1/3 as much water as the Columbia is drawn upon by humans to cool gas fired boilers.

The power plants have similar configurations, that water goes up a cooling tower/condenser. They aren't using the river as a heat sink.

That total miss right there , says you know little to nothing about this issue.

Edit: went back and updated the gas mw totals to remove biomass and Goldendale which doesn't draw directly from the Columbia.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. And while we're on the subject of lies, don't forget post 84.

[bvar22]

158. Wrong again.

You said:
"If you're burning wood, you're no better than a reactor."

...except that I throw my ashes in the compost & veggie beds.
Do you do that with your nuclear waste?

[AtheistCrusader]

159. Already addresss this.

No different in how you are a contribution to th phantom problem you seem so concerned about.

[bvar22]

160. Moving goalposts again.

Burning Wood is NOT just like a Nuclear Powerplant,
Anyone who insists it is.......well, the sidewalk doesn't go all the way to their house.

Burning wood is carbon neutral.
Burning coal or oil products is not.

I thought I already addressed this.

"Burning wood is considered carbon-neutral because it does not increase the amount of carbon dioxide (a regularly occurring molecule but also a greenhouse gas) cycling through the atmosphere. Carbon is continually cycling through all living plants and animals. Tree growth and wood decomposition represent a short-term carbon cycle, where growing trees convert carbon dioxide to woody biomass and decomposing trees release carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere.

Whether trees naturally decompose or burn, carbon dioxide is emitted back into the atmosphere, replacing what was just taken out. As long as global tree biomass production is at least as fast as wood is burned and it decomposes, the carbon cycle remains in balance; there is no net increase of carbon in the atmosphere.

http://www.extension.org/pages/43727/is-burning-wood-carbon-neutral#.Vb0z0bUVipo

[AtheistCrusader]

161. Adds heat that could remain out of he heat engine of the atmosphere for a long time.

That wood could Rot and release as CO2 directly, or it can go up in a fire. You chose fire, so, you got heat too.

Heat was your issue early in the thread, and what you complained about for the reactor, not knowing if there even were any.

So no, I haven't move any goal posts. You did when you started whining about other aspects about the reactor, like radiation if it melts. That's a moved goal post.

You sure project a lot, complaining that people do what you are doing, when they aren't.

[bvar22]

168. Wood Rot and decomposition releases heat and carbon too.

Look it up.

[AtheistCrusader]

170. Can you look up what "long time" means?

The heat problem in that region is temporary. Weather variation driven by climate change. It will bounce back, it'll experience more drought, etc.

It'll get better and worse over time, locally to that region.

Next big problem will be mud washed into the rivers from too much rain and too little surviving vegetation to soak it up and hold the soil.

That's going To kill fish too. Where did you say you harvested your wood again?

[passiveporcupine]

22. You have no idea what the heat was like here

I'm in the Columbia River Gorge.

Right now we are have a few days of cooler than normal temps, but this spring,entering into summer we had weeks of record breaking heat. It was miserable for land dwellers and I'm not surprised it heated the water enough to kill fish. It was horrible.

We are also in serious drought mode, and asked not to water lawns or use water unnecessarily, so my place is dead and dry and hideous to look at. We've been in drought mode for a few years and it's just getting worse each year. I'm praying El Nina will give us a break this fall and winter. We desperately need snow in the mountains and lots and lots of rain.

I don't have water right now because if I were using it, my spring tank would be dry. I use about eight liters of water every two days and other than that my spring water is shut off. I am using dirty irrigation water for my house right now because of this.

I'm so tired of this, but I'm afraid this is just the beginning of the norm.

[davidpdx]

36. I'm from Oregon and love the Columbia River Gorge

It is so sad that the heat and lack of water have become such pressing issues. That and the whole thing with the bottling of water in Cascade Locks (which is one of my favorite places to visit).

I live in South Korea and often think about the CRG and how beautiful it is. Next year I will be going to visit and be out that way.

[passiveporcupine]

56. I call it the eighth wonder of the world

Yes, the Gorge is an amazingly beautiful place to live, hike and visit. Hope you can make it out here.

[PasadenaTrudy]

42. It's been hotter in Portland

than here in SoCal lately! Here I was hoping to move up there some day to escape the heat.

[neverforget]

82. Are you ready for some more heat? I know I'm not.

http://www.katu.com/news/local/Record-setting-summer-Western-Oregon-back-under-heat-advisory-318832661.html

I don't mind a heat wave now and then but this year sucks.

[PasadenaTrudy]

89. Shit :( n/t

[passiveporcupine]

118. Yes, we are back in hot mode again

for a week at least. Damn, I was loving the cooler days we've had this past week. Now I'm trapped in my house until this is over.

[PasadenaTrudy]

121. That's my life here in SoCal

Trapped indoors because of the heat. It will stay hot until Nov., I'm sure. It did last year

[bvar22]

162. I know the heat has been bad there.

That is why I would look at Power Plants & Industry first.
Upthread, someone said there a re a lot of dams on the Colombia that impeded the water flow.
Something could be done about that.

The reason why I would like to find something on the Colombia, is THEN you could fix it.
If this is the New Normal of Global climate change,
then we are all fucked.

a 7 degree rise in temp for the whole River is astounding to me.
Has it ever varied THAT much in a single year.

But that is nothing to worry about.
Hood is due to blow, and that will just fill up the Gorge with lava.

[passiveporcupine]

163. Actually, what I've read about Hood

is that when it blows, it won't blow like a Mt. St. Helens. It will be a mild blow and yes, there may be a stream of lava flowing the same path as before, toward the river, it probably won't be worse than the last one.

I live too close to Hood to take this lightly. So does my sis. She's even closer and in a more direct path than I am. So I do try to keep my ears open about Hood blowing.

[bvar22]

166. Where ya gonna go when the Volcano blows?

Sorry....on of my favorite Jimmy Buffett songs.


I believe the Yellowstone Caldera is before Hood on the calendar, so you got nothing to worry about.

I hate joking about Volcanoes.
I'm from the Gulf Coast, and the posts making fun of Hurricanes always hurt.
Good Luck yo you and yours.
Praying this Summer is just an anomaly.

[passiveporcupine]

167. You got it

I am far more worried about Yellowstone, but I shouldn't be, because I suspect I won't even know it's coming in time to be scared.

[AtheistCrusader]

171. This is the new normal.

Only it's going to get worse.

You could have saved yourself a shitload of posts and angst if you'd just looked up where the water temps are up, and if they are upstream or downstream of dams, power plants and other industrial concerns.

(Much is upstream, this is the new normal and yes we are fucked.)

[CreekDog]

125. Global warming, why is this so complicated for you?

[bvar22]

142. Global Warming IS complicated, many, many components, many, many sources, many, many LIES.

That is why I am calling for an independent scientific investigation into the Colombia River.

Global Warming is man made.
If it it is man-made, it can be undone by man.

Why is this so complicated for you ?

[AtheistCrusader]

147. An issue already well understood and a case example of

The consequences of climate change.

Nothing to do with the reactor though. LOTS to do with the gas generators. Not much to do with the reactor.

[bvar22]

150. NO. Not well understood.

That is why the estimates of the damage vary so wildly from year to year.
NO one predicted the size & quantity of the Arctic Methane plumes this year.
The glaciers are melting at a speed much faster the the "well understood" predictions.

Whoops! We don't know as much as we think we know.

[AtheistCrusader]

151. You didn't even know if there was a reactor(s) on the Columbia so...

Yeah, knowledge. It's FUNdamental.

[DirtyHippyBastard]

14. A quick search shows at least 2

that are currently active- the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant, Rainier, Oregon, and the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington.
There is also the Hanford Site, "a mostly decommissioned nuclear production complex operated by the United States federal government on the Columbia River in the U.S. state of Washington. As of 2007 the Hanford site represents two-thirds of the nation's high-level radioactive waste by volume. Hanford is currently the most contaminated nuclear site in the United States". Quote is from wikipedia.

[FuzzyRabbit]

16. The Trojan plant was closed about twenty years ago.

[link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Nuclear_Power_Plant

[DirtyHippyBastard]

17. yep and oops. nt

[Tikki]

44. You know Hanford's leaky barrels of nuclear waste are just up stream where the Columbia bends...

Do I think any leakage could contribute to this problem?

[Warren DeMontague]

165. Nuclear waste is a problem, but not one that contriubtes to the river temperature.

Not in this case. this is a straight up effect of some seriously hot weather.

[rhett o rick]

54. There used to be one, the Trojan Plant (i think), but it's been long shut down. I don't know of any

others. The pacific nw isn't real friendly to nuclear power.

[dixiegrrrrl]

128. Yeah, Hanford has been leaking into the Columbia River for ages.

But in this case, the incredible heat and constant sunshine and lack of rain are the key factors.

[DFW]

4. This is not only a disaster

It is an indication of a coming bigger disaster.

[ruffburr]

7. I'm glad to see-

Somebody gets it, The situation is much more dire than we have been told by main stream media, keeping the majority ill informed and digging their own graves, as it is half the country will vote republican, morons leading morons off the cliff.

[DFW]

9. You'd THINK it would be obvious

It's rather depressing to find it isn't.

[passiveporcupine]

24. The situation is dire

It doesn't mean this is from global warming, but it is at least exasperated by global warming. It might just be a normal cyclical weather trend. But global warning surely isn't helping.

I'm getting very worried about living here without water if things don't change soon.

[PasadenaTrudy]

43. And here in Pasadena

people are still watering their perfect lawns

[trillion]

33. Yes, you're right. Eventually it will be us. But is sure ruined my night and will through the whole

chain of extinctions.

[restorefreedom]

71. these salmon are the canaries in the coal mine

much worse is coming. just hope we can mitigate the catastrophic damage that will ensue

[geek tragedy]

5. Victims of global warming, as will be all of the animals and fish that eat them in

order to survive.

[Matariki]

8. This has been the hottest year I've ever experienced in the PNW

In the 80s in June. Unheard of here. Records broken daily

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/record-temps-pacific-northwest-19179

[passiveporcupine]

25. I share your discomfort

I'm in the Columbia River Gorge and we've broken heat records up here too. I moved here, instead of the valley to avoid heat like this. Oh, did I make a mistake. I'm too close to The Dalles, which deals with major heat in the summer. This year has been a killer at times. I've never seen my cats act like they do now...just looking out at the front yard, I see cats laying all over in the grass, where they never would have hung out before. Nobody likes heat like this.

We broke a record here of 107° in June. We've hit that in July, but never before in June.

[davidpdx]

37. Poor cats

Even they know something is wrong. I don't blame them for not wanting to go outside much.

[Thespian2]

10. The coming disaster

is on its way...dying salmon are just the latest signs...ask Jason Box why he moved his family to Denmark...

[Omaha Steve]

11. Are we past saving the planet yet?

K&R!

[deathrind]

55. The planet...

Will be just fine, but our species and many others may not be.

[KT2000]

12. WA Fishing closures and restrictions 7/18

Drought conditions prompt fishing
closures, restrictions on numerous rivers

OLYMPIA – State fishery managers are closing or restricting fishing on more than 30 rivers throughout Washington to help protect fish in areas where drought conditions have reduced flows and increased water temperatures.

The closures and restrictions take effect Saturday (July 18) at 12:01 a.m. The changes will remain in effect until further notice.

Fishing will be closed in some waters, and limited in others each day to the hours between midnight and 2 p.m. These “hoot-owl” restrictions will go into effect on rivers where fishery managers want to reduce stress on fish during the hottest time of day.

High water temperatures can be deadly for fish, such as trout, while diminished stream flows can strand migrating salmon and steelhead, said Craig Burley, fish program manager for the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW).

“With such extreme drought conditions in several areas of the state, we needed to take these steps to help protect vulnerable fish in waters where we have concerns,” Burley said. “We’ll continue monitoring stream conditions throughout Washington this summer and take additional actions if necessary.”

For details on the closures and restrictions, check the emergency regulations, which will be posted tomorrow on WDFW’s webpage at https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/erules/efishrules/.

Fishing closures and restrictions are listed by region below. Today’s action does not include any rivers in Region 6 (South Sound/Olympic Peninsula). However, earlier this summer, the department closed fishing on a section of the Sol Duc River to protect returning chinook during drought conditions.

http://wdfw.wa.gov/news/jul1615b/

[a kennedy]

18. Just 5 to 6 degrees......wow. eom

[Uncle Joe]

20. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, n2doc.

[countryjake]

23. Another related loss...the Sturgeon...

Dozens of Sturgeon found dead in Columbia River

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/dozens-of-sturgeon-found-dead-in-columbia-river/

~snip~

Most of the dead sturgeon in the Columbia River are mature fish, more than 5 feet in length.

At 5 feet, sturgeon are teenagers. More than 6 feet long, they’re in their 20s at least, Langness said. Once they grow to more than 9 feet, they are difficult to age.

“In general, these fish are decades old,” Langness said. Unlike salmon, which die after spawning at 4 or 5 years old, sturgeon can live for 100 years.

Dead sturgeon continue to be spotted floating down Columbia River, which may be a sign that whatever is causing their deaths is not over yet, Hoffarth said.

Columbia River Sturgeon deaths could be linked to diseased Salmon

http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2015/07/columbia_river_sturgeon_deaths.html


Sturgeon, that dark mysterious creature from the dinasaur era, are a federally protected species. (Steven Nehl/The Oregonian)

SPOKANE, Wash. — The mysterious deaths of dozens of giant sturgeon in the Columbia River near the Tri-Cities is prompting state officials to consider closing catch-and-release fishing of the species.

Paul Hoffarth of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife says people have reported finding more than 80 dead sturgeon on the river from the Hanford Reach to Boardman, Oregon.

The Spokesman-Review reported all the fish were in the large category, ranging from 5 feet to 8.5 feet long.

Hoffarth says theories for the sturgeon deaths include the possibility that the sockeye salmon they're eating could be diseased from migrating upstream in the Columbia's unusually warm water.

He says another theory suggests the sturgeon are stressed by the combination of dramatically lower flows with higher-than-normal July water temperatures.

[shanti]

66. we have sturgeon in the sacramento river

but i haven't read about them being affected by higher water temps yet, and it gets mighty hot here in sac!

[countryjake]

103. I don't know, shanti, maybe with the ongoing drought you've got down there...

the sturgeon may have previously been affected during years past, but nobody said anything?

We've been spotting the dead salmon up here for weeks now, way downriver from where they're supposed to be found, usually dying upstream (after they've spawned). But still not much of any mention by authorities locally (on the Skagit River) and the reports of both the Sockeye deaths and Sturgeon deaths down on the Columbia have only recently made any news.

In my thirty-five years up here in this Northwest corner of WA, I've never seen such incredibly hot temps, nor such a lack of precip (including the past Winter) as we've experienced this year. Even our trees are dying.

It's 89 degrees here right now, with no rain in sight.

(on edit)
Just went out to check...it's now 91 degrees. There have been many years in this far north county I live in when the temperature never ever even got close to 90 during a summer. We've had five days up here in the Cascade foothills of 95 this year (first couple of times, that was so astonishing, we even took pictures of the thermometer!).

[shanti]

109. i don't know anything about sturgeon

but maybe the type down here has adapted to the warmer waters in the sacramento river, while the ones up there haven't?

yes, 91 is HOT for washington! i lived in the olympia/tacoma area for a couple of years in the 70's, and never remembered it being that hot in the summer. i had my first son during a washington summer and it was beautiful, not too hot, not too cold. the rain definitely got to me though, and i had to hightail it back to cali! rain is iconic to WA, can't imagine there being no rain...

it's a bit hotter here today at 106, i'd actually welcome 91!

[Yallow]

27. I Saw The Dams Spilling Water Saturday

I just drove from Wenatchee to Chelan Saturday, and noticed 2 spillways open on the Rocky Reach Dam. I haven't seen a spillway open for 30 years there. I knew it wasn't high water, because the snow pack was almost nil last winter. Now I know what was happening.

I grew up in the Methow, and visit there 4 or 5 times a year. Last summer a large part of Pateros (where I graduated) burned to the ground with the Carlton Complex fire, and over 300 houses, and what seemed like half the county (Okanogan) burned. I haven't driven in too many places, but from what I understand a lot of the Loop burned, and god knows what else. Driving from Pateros to Carlton I saw nothing but burned trees in 90% of the areas on both sides of the Methow Valley.

Why I am writing all this is because the folks that live in the Methow, are mostly "conservatives", and this is one of the most Republican friendly parts of the state.

Maybe watching all the fish die, and watching their houses burn, and watching the woods burn for miles in every direction may get them to ask themselves if they want to continue to belong to the "drill baby drill" party.....

It's really sad watching really good people who are so f-ing brainwashed. They hate "tree huggers" and ride horses, and snowmobiles, and drive trucks, and are true gas burning planet wasters if there ever was any.

I think being "carbon neutral" should be forced up every single inhabitant of this planet's a__ before it is too late. It may already be too late, with the latest prediction of 10 feet of ocean rise in 50 years.

The feedback loops are getting stronger. As it gets hotter, more ice melts and that makes it even hotter. We're cooked. Starting with my beautiful Methow Valley. Driving up the river, I wanted to cry. Every single hillside for miles was black.

Welcome to progress.......

[cilla4progress]

81. I live just down the Columbia River valley from the Methow,

in the Entiat valley. I am an irrigator, backcountry horseback rider, environmentalist, and progressive. And the Methow valley has a fair share of Seattle-area second home-owners with a liberal bent. I think we should be careful lest we paint with too broad a brush.

That said, what I would like people to know is how much money, effort and political capital has been invested in my River, the Entiat, and now how sadly futile those efforts now seem. Efforts that include packing baby salmon into mountain lakes by mule train. Millions have been spent to maintain and rebuild salmon stocks here, an icon of the Pacific Northwest, which were first destroyed in the building of the great dam system. The granddaddy of course being grand coulée.

These dams not only decimated salmon populations, but also took down native cultures in this area. When they were built, starting in the 1930s - by no less than FDR - they were seen as a savior for the depression-ridden and parched scablands wanting for stimulus and development.

So it's never been a simple set of issues. This scenario is beyond tragic and I suppose will send natural resource managers scrambling for an emergency response.

I hope, as is said here, this isn't a harbinger, but it's hard to think it isn't.

Fragile planet, fragile ecosystem. So blessed to live here and have enjoyed her landscapes and her bounty.

[abelenkpe]

28. T_T

Love salmon. This is horrible news. Good thing we've done so little to combat climate change.

[trillion]

34. This site really needs up vote buttons.

[trillion]

35. Here

[grasswire]

29. I live on the bank of the Willamette River

I'm seeing dead salmon every day. It's absolutely tragic. So many of them, the carrion eaters aren't even keeping up.

[Duppers]

30. K & R

[Liberal_in_LA]

31. kick

[riversedge]

32. not a good sign at all.Yet Republicans refuse to listen to reason.

The USA could be a leader in combating climate change. Rather we are a laughing stock to the world

[bvar22]

63. In 2008, The Democrats held the White House,

and large majorities in the House and Senate.
The Democrats did nothing either.

...just voting for Corporate Democrats won't solve this problem either.

[artislife]

38. opened up the Seattle Times to this.

Guess what. The oceans are warming, too.

[packman]

39. The canary in the coal mine

When you see dark clouds on the horizon , you know a storm is approaching. What will it take to realize what is being done to the environment?

[deathrind]

41. This is just the beginning....

With the current CO2 > 400ppm in the atmosphere the lagging temp is going to continue to relentlessly rise to catch up to that number and beyond.

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/climate/global/past-present

See fig#2....

[J_J_]

45. opposite problem in Alaska

Alaska had such a huge run this year the fisherman are only getting .50 per pound



Most Bristol Bay fishermen were shocked and dismayed when they heard last week that major buyers would pay 50 cents a pound for red salmon. That’s a throwback to the dock prices paid from 2002 to 2004, and is far below the $1.20 or more paid last year.

A late surge of reds produced catches of nearly 13 million fish in the final week of this year’s run, bringing the total by July 23 to 34.5 million fish. Fish were still trickling in, and state managers, who called the season an anomaly, said the final tally should reach the projected harvest of 37.6 million sockeye.

http://www.adn.com/article/20150724/bristol-bay-fishermen-aghast-50-cents-pound-price-sockeye

[killbotfactory]

154. 50 cents a pound? My distributor charges my co-op $8/pound

I guess they're giving all the deals to the supermarket chains who sell it for our cost. Or they are going to give out some ridiculous bonuses this year.

[raouldukelives]

47. Yikes. Well, best keep trying to Wall St our way out of this mess.

Stay calm and keep investing.

[Hamlette]

48. all pacific salmon die when they spawn

I saw them spanning in Alaska in the '80s and it is not pretty. The streams run red with their blood.

I suppose here they mean they are dying before they get far enough to spawn but if they do, they'll die.

[ffr]

53. True, except that these Salmon were on their way "to spawn."

As in future tense, not past tense.

If the story said they died after their journey and 'had spawned,' that would be different.

[hatrack]

49. Bit of advice for those reading this thread: get used to it.

It's going to look like this, and it's going to get much worse, and it's going to last as long as any of us here today are alive.

[d_legendary1]

50. As long as big oil, gas, and coal are in charge

Expect massive die-offs to continue.

[bvar22]

113. Big Oil, Gas, Coal, Fracking, and NUKE Plants.

the Lesson from Fukushima:

---As long as we continue to use NUKE Plants,
Fukushima, and far worse will happen again,
and again
and AGAIN.

[ffr]

51. Focus more on nighttime lows than daytime highs

And you'll see the true indicator of how hot it's getting. Because, what happens overnight is a measure of how much heat can escape into space, i.e. how much heat is trapped by greenhouse gasses and cannot escape. That's the true measure.

So for instance, it'll be 58° overnight in Eugene, OR, tonight, 61 the day after and 63 the day after that. Compare that to the history average, which ironically includes the past decade, the hottest decade on global record and those temps are between 6 - 11° above that...consistently above normal.

[passiveporcupine]

119. That is why the last heat spell was so unbearable here

It usually cools off enough at night that I can cool my place down, using fans and strategic window planning. I wasn't able to this spring/summer because the nights just didn't cool off enough. This week is going to be bad again, because again, I think the temps are staying high at night. It's going to be 64° at night here most of the week.

[DawgHouse]

59. How awful!

[YOHABLO]

72. Sockeye is the expensive salmon, you know the wild caught salmon in high end restaurants.

It's a real shame what is happening.

[roamer65]

74. Meanwhile in Michigan.

We have not even really broke much above 90 deg F this summer. Our weather reminds me more of PNW weather over the past 3 years than ever before. Endless cloud and rain as well.

But there is no climate change.

[love_katz]

83. kick and rec

Grieving for the salmon, and my beloved Pacific northwest.

[Zorra]

95. They fail to mention that dams have a significant impact on water temperature

in the rivers of the Pacific Northwest, particularly the Columbia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dams_in_the_Columbia_River_watershed

Other point sources, such as tributaries, factories, waste treatment plants, and other human endeavors, also cause localized warming of the river.

I wonder if the Hanford Nuclear Power dumps hot water into the river? It used to dump mass hot water into the river, years ago.

I grew up by the spawning grounds; this is heartbreaking on so many levels.

[Sam_Fields]

152. This is becuase we had a very small or no snow pack.

Believe it or not the temperature difference is only 5 degrees in the rivers. Off the coast of Oregon over the winter we had a warm spot and one off the coast of BC and Alaska that hampered the creation of cool weather to allow the snow pack to be created. This winter with El nino occurring we will most likely have another wet winter with little snow pack. The warming off our coasts cause is unknown, but scientist have said the warming of our oceans would be a natural reaction with the CO2 in the air creating heat in the oceans.

[Warren DeMontague]

164. It's been hot as fuck in the Pacific NW

So really, im not hugely surprised.