Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
171–180 of 197 posts
Re: Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
#172We're going to need a lot of desalination plants powered by clean energy.
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.
People are coming up with some wacky solutions, but am I missing something or can you just pull in more seawater and dilute the brine closer to the ocean's natural salinity before you send it back into the ocean?
Re: Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
#173Genuine 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 article also states “climate change and human activities increasingly threaten lakes that store 87% of Earth’s liquid surface fresh water”, but neglects to mention that only 0.3% of freshwater is liquid surface water in the first place. All in all a giant nothing burger, as with so many climate change alarmist “science” nowadays. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci...
You would think that on a planetary scale, climate change result in more water, not less. Increased oceanic surface temperatures would cause more storms and thus more rain.
Re: Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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)
Is 26.38 Gt a lot? 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?
But they measure close to 30 years (1992-2020), which means its close to 0.6% which is a significant number
Re: Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What percentage of lake water could we use prior to literal millennia of engineering effort was put into moving it where we need All of it, people built settlements on lakes and rivers for this very reason > It’s certainly not the case that we’re “locked in” to lakes, rather we are very capable of adapting to local conditions. No, we are locked in to rivers and lakes because thats the only big source of renewable f…
And yet they built aqueducts and wells too. Local surface water has been insufficient for civilization for at least 2000 years. > The underground aquifiers under midwest and under much of middle east will be gone in 50 years and will never return > You should not incorrect people here without basic facts at your disposal Nothing quite as HN as someone making bold alarmist unsupported assertions about the future of cl…
Are you at odds with basic addition or something? We are pumping out the aquifers faster than they recharge. Basic math lets you calculate that they will run out in a few decades.
The aquifers are left over from the ice age. Once depleted, the aquifer will take over 6,000 years to replenish naturally through rainfall.
Re: Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
#176Re: Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is 26.38 Gt a lot? 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?
But they measure close to 30 years (1992-2020), which means its close to 0.6% which is a significant number
Is it? Maybe it's an error, or maybe there's more water in ice pack, glaciers, snow, underground, or even in the ocean.
Like, it's unclear if there's a problem here or not.
Re: Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article also states “climate change and human activities increasingly threaten lakes that store 87% of Earth’s liquid surface fresh water”, but neglects to mention that only 0.3% of freshwater is liquid surface water in the first place. All in all a giant nothing burger, as with so many climate change alarmist “science” nowadays. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci...
You would think that on a planetary scale, climate change result in more water, not less. Increased oceanic surface temperatures would cause more storms and thus more rain.
You are correct - and that is indeed the expectation.
Re: Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
#179Genuine 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…
That sounds reasonable. The water would have to go somewhere, but that alone could be catastrophic regionally. Cities are built around water sources, so having them move on timescales of human lifespans is worth worrying about.
Most people live by the ocean or on major lakes and rivers. This data doesn't show any of that changing.
Re: Satellites reveal widespread decline in global lake water storage
#180Genuine 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 article also states “climate change and human activities increasingly threaten lakes that store 87% of Earth’s liquid surface fresh water”, but neglects to mention that only 0.3% of freshwater is liquid surface water in the first place. All in all a giant nothing burger, as with so many climate change alarmist “science” nowadays. https://www.usgs.gov/special-topics/water-science-school/sci...
The link you point to claims 1.2% of fresh water is surface water, fyi. According to the link, the bulk is in glaciers and icebergs (~69% - nice). 30% is ground water, which is cool and all, but replenishes slowly from what I know.
Not to lecture but write out my thoughts, I feel like the discussion on climate change consistently revolves around who supports or opposes the idea and who/what is to blame. To me, looking around, it’s a conversation about responsibility. I don’t see how, say, having a bunch of casinos in Las Vegas is responsible behavior for a society. Same goes with eating a ton of calories and sitting around all day.
And you can say it’s not, no biggie, people do crazy shit all the time. But like a body, it can only take so much before (to extend the latter example) diabetes sets in. At some point it seems like a wise decision to be responsible with our planet and our bodies, collectively. But I don’t really see people willingly assuming responsibility for their actions, let alone their impact on the collective. Oof, especially in the US where the interest in “independence” has a large following.