Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday August 22 2018, @01:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the snow-cones-for-everyone dept.

Accelerated melting of mountain glaciers in the Cascade Range could impact water supplies in the Pacific Northwest region over the coming decades, according to new research.

Seasonal snow and ice accumulation cause glaciers in the Cascade Range mountains to grow a little every winter and melt a little every summer. This annual melt provides water for much of the Pacific Northwest, which includes Washington, Oregon, Idaho and parts of Montana. Inhabitants of the region utilize this water for drinking, crop irrigation, generating hydroelectric power and other uses. Glacier melt provides supplementary water when less snowmelt is available, alleviating drought conditions or other impacts of dry periods.

Over the past several decades, warming air temperatures have caused Pacific Northwest glaciers to melt faster than usual, and scientists have wondered what impact this will have on future water supplies in the region.

In a new study, scientists used computer modeling to estimate the flow of mountain glacial melt in six river basins in the Pacific Northwest. They used the model to estimate glacier mass loss and meltwater volume from 1960 to the present, and predict future changes to glacier mass and meltwater volume through 2099. They looked at both low-elevation areas up to 1,100 meters (3,609 feet) in elevation and high-elevation areas up to 4,440 meters (14,436 feet) in elevation.

The study found lower-elevation glaciers in the Cascades reached their peak melt in the latter half of the 20th century. This means river basins fed by runoff from these glaciers will have less water available during the dry season over the coming decades, according to the study's authors. The results show that in some areas, declines in snow and glacier melt could lead to an 80 percent reduction in late summer river volumes by the end of the century.

The paper did not quantify consequences of changes in summer streamflow but some of these changes may have already begun impacting downstream systems, according to Chris Frans, formerly a Ph.D. student at the University of Washington in Seattle and now the lead on climate change studies for the northwest division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Frans is the lead author of the new study in Water Resources Research, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:27PM (5 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:27PM (#724690) Journal

    All we need is cold fusion

    Hot fusion is even better - don't need to transform the heat in electricity with loses in the process, don't need special membranes or pressure.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:41PM (4 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:41PM (#724696) Journal

    ROLLEYES

    Isn't hot fusion like a bomb? Or, like that whole global warming thing?

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:59PM (3 children)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 22 2018, @03:59PM (#724708) Journal

      Isn't hot fusion like a bomb?

      Neither Tokamak nor Lockheed Martin Compact Fusion Reactor is a bomb.
      And both are more realistic projects than col fusion.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 22 2018, @05:13PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 22 2018, @05:13PM (#724744) Journal

        Actually, the tokomak is a lot like a bomb. They fire it up, let it run briefly, then shut it down so that it doesn't run away from them. They haven't figured out how to contain the fire for extended periods of time.

        A quick search suggests that China has maintained a tokomak reaction for a whopping 102 seconds.

        Cold fusion, if possible, wouldn't be so very hazardous to work with. Having a mini sun in your lab is cool and all, until it burns through the containment.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @06:05PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22 2018, @06:05PM (#724779)

          Umm, not quite how that works buddy. Unless you create some feedback loop so the reaction can sustain itself then there really isn't much danger. Worst case you destroy some of the lab, but this isn't like that stupid Spiderman movie where a miniature sun literally starts rolling around the city.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 23 2018, @01:11AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 23 2018, @01:11AM (#724991) Journal

            A regular old match, burning at about 500 degrees, can burn down a lot of stuff.

            A high tech match, burning at several million degrees, isn't dangerous.

            Got it.