141–150 of 197 posts
Genuine question here. What would be the expected change over the same period? The abstract says 53% of lakes saw declines...does that mean 47% saw no change or gains? If so, that seems pretty close to net stable to me globally. Or frankly what we would expect to see (some gains, some losses) Also, this is stated later in the doc: "Between 1984 and 2015, a loss of 90,000 km2 of permanent water area was observed by sa…
Genuine question here. What would be the expected change over the same period? The abstract says 53% of lakes saw declines...does that mean 47% saw no change or gains? If so, that seems pretty close to net stable to me globally. Or frankly what we would expect to see (some gains, some losses) Also, this is stated later in the doc: "Between 1984 and 2015, a loss of 90,000 km2 of permanent water area was observed by sa…
the phrase you read said "Over half (53 ± 2%) of the large lakes experienced significant water losses" (emphasis mine)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IIRC These can have thier own host of problems because the 'brine' byproduct doesn't mix well back into the ocean and can settle/pool and create marine dead zones. Although suppose that will be less of a priority if people are thirsty.
The ocean is way too big for removing some drinking water (which is going to end up back in the ocean anyway) to have a material effect on the salt concentration. The problem is strictly local: if the brine produced by the plant is dumped in an area with low flow, it can hang around and affect sea life. If you use a big discharge pipe and put it a decent distance offshore in a current where it can mix effectively, th…
Here in the Netherlands they decided to increase the water level of our lakes by 5cm to handle the drought season this year. Since the amount of snowfall in the Alps was lower than normal. https://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/nieuws/archief/2023/04/hoger-...
It must be nice to live in a country that manages their natural resources with an eye towards long-term sustainability.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is good, but may not potentially scale up - if we were desalinating 5X, 10X as much seawater, it seems unlikely we could make use of that much salt, and would have to bury it or dispose of it some other way.
People are considering using salt as a building material now: https://www.archdaily.com/994769/could-salt-be-a-material-of... When you have a practically free resource which is waste from a large scale industrial process, cottage industries to make use of the free waste sometimes pop up. It's a solvable problem.
Genuine question here. What would be the expected change over the same period? The abstract says 53% of lakes saw declines...does that mean 47% saw no change or gains? If so, that seems pretty close to net stable to me globally. Or frankly what we would expect to see (some gains, some losses) Also, this is stated later in the doc: "Between 1984 and 2015, a loss of 90,000 km2 of permanent water area was observed by sa…
Genuine question here. What would be the expected change over the same period? The abstract says 53% of lakes saw declines...does that mean 47% saw no change or gains? If so, that seems pretty close to net stable to me globally. Or frankly what we would expect to see (some gains, some losses) Also, this is stated later in the doc: "Between 1984 and 2015, a loss of 90,000 km2 of permanent water area was observed by sa…
> Globally, natural lake volume declined at a net rate of −26.38 ± 1.59 Gt year the phrase you read said "Over half (53 ± 2%) of the large lakes experienced significant water losses" (emphasis mine)
There's 91k cubic kilometers of fresh water in lakes according to: https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci...
And a cubic kilometer is basically a Gt, right? .98 Gt?
So 26 / 91,000 = ~0.02% ?
Is that a lot? If it's really 0.02% - wouldn't you expect something to be random noise? How do we know it's not random noise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
So you point to a change in your local normal climate as showing there isn't... climate change? Just trying to clarify what you are trying to say here?
Genuine question here. What would be the expected change over the same period? The abstract says 53% of lakes saw declines...does that mean 47% saw no change or gains? If so, that seems pretty close to net stable to me globally. Or frankly what we would expect to see (some gains, some losses) Also, this is stated later in the doc: "Between 1984 and 2015, a loss of 90,000 km2 of permanent water area was observed by sa…