University of Colorado researchers say global warming increases the chances that the Colorado River system’s reservoirs could be depleted by mid-century.

A study released this week says that if global warming cuts the river’s average flow by 10 percent, the chances of draining the river’s reservoirs by 2057 is 25 percent.

starfleet_dude on October 12, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Is common sense a requirement to become a researcher at UC?
or maybe a lack of?
If the world’s temperatures do increase( I hope so!) rainfall will also increase. Unless, the researchers have discovered a new natural principle that shows how increased temps will decrease evaporation.
If global warming is a fact, it is something that will happen over a period of decades,if not centuries. Changed weather patterns will mean changed local conditions around the world leading to population shifts. The denizens of this planet have been dealing with that since the beginning.
The scare mongers are motivated by an over whelming fear of change. If the worlds climate is indeed changing what is need is not hair brain schemes to stop what is a natural phenomenon, rather well thought out ways to deal with it.

“In other words the supply of melt water from the melting glaciers is threatened by the melting of the glaciers. This is correct in that if the glaciers melt completely there will be no more melt water from the glaciers.

“What if the glaciers were not melting due to a colder climate? Then where would the irrigation water come from? How about if the glaciers were advancing 100 meters per year toward the villages that need the melt water for irrigation?

“How does the logic of this situation escape these bright minds?

“It snows every winter in the Himalayas. When the snow melts it fills the rivers. Where there is net melting of the glaciers this adds additional water to the rivers.

“But they can’t have it both ways. If they want to have continued melt water from the glaciers then the glaciers must continue to melt.

“Seeing that the glaciers are finite in size this would eventually result in no glacier, and reliance on annual snow melt.”

October 12, 2009 at 9:32 AM – October 13, 2009 at 8:16 AM

Okay kids, that’s how long the the comments have been running on this thread. Please, tell me, has anyone obtained a convert? Anyone? Bueller…Bueller?

No? Wow! What a friggin’ surprise.

Yeah. It could be. Or it COULD be that CO2 is harmless.

Even more likely, it will turn out that enhanced CO2 is extremely beneficial.

It’s amazing how he finds worthless studies by alarmist groups and tries to convince himself that the science is settled.

The asteroid that killed the dinosaurs had nothing to do with the dozen or so ice iges that have occurred in the 64 million years since the asteroid hit. BTW, ice ages didn’t start occuring until something like 20 million years ago.

Time out.

Before we go any further, many of you need to learn the difference between glacier run off and seasonal snow pack melt.

blink on October 12, 2009 at 5:37 PM

He also believes that it doesn’t rain in India, or any other place in the world. Or if it does, that the rain evaporates immediately and doesn’t flow into rivers.

Really?

Glacial run off from the Himalays and the Tibetan Plateau service nearly half the world’s population and its accompanying food production and industry.

Ditto for major Rivers in Europe and South America. Even the Mississippi has its origins in the remnants of a Glacier.

Melting water from the Rockies feed how many millions of people through agriculture?

Holger on October 12, 2009 at 5:35 PM

100% of the water from all of those rivers comes directly from a glacier?

Are you incredibly stupid, or do you just like appearing that way to impress your mother.

BTW, not one drop of water from the Mississippi comes from a glacier. Of the others, at most 1 or 2 percent does.

IF the globe is warming, glacial melting will depend on how much warmer it gets.

Dark-Star on October 12, 2009 at 9:35 PM

Yeah. Kinda glad to see that you understand this much. You still haven’t addressed seasonal accumulation, though. But I assume your answer will be the same.

Wether or not the globe is warming is very much in debate, as well as the question of is manmade activity the cause?

Yeah. Kinda glad to see that you understand this much.

It COULD be…we can’t just spew off millions of tons of gases (CO2 and otherwise) and expect nothing to happen.

Yeah. It could be. Or it COULD be that CO2 is harmless.

But the jury is still very much out on the whole thing.

Yeah. The jury is still out on lots of stuff. Who killed JFK? Were the moon landings faked? Did the US government cause 9-11? Is Obama a natural born citizen? Every crazy theory keeps a jury out. I just wish the AGWers would admit their defeat after the jury has long been dismissed.

And besides, I don’t think there’s been an argument that can made on this subject that somebody hasn’t cooked up a list of canned responses for.

Not all canned responses are created equal. Some are lies.

Well you’re the warming theorist. You tell me. Consult your beloved models.

blink on October 12, 2009 at 6:58 PM

No I’m not, wingnut.

IF the globe is warming, glacial melting will depend on how much warmer it gets. Wether or not the globe is warming is very much in debate, as well as the question of is manmade activity the cause? It COULD be…we can’t just spew off millions of tons of gases (CO2 and otherwise) and expect nothing to happen.

But the jury is still very much out on the whole thing. And besides, I don’t think there’s been an argument that can made on this subject that somebody hasn’t cooked up a list of canned responses for. Xp Might say it’s a ‘hot topic’.