Print 99 comment(s) - last by tharik.. on Jun 14 at 2:58 PM

Wheat crops in India  (Source: NY Times)
Populations around the Himalayas at risk

recent study in the journal Science shows that the shrinkage of glaciers will cause a lack in water sources for crops, ultimately leading to food shortages for approximately 60 million people living near the Himalayas. This study is one of the first to observe the effect melting glaciers have on the Himalayan river basins, and could possibly further provoke the existing debate that climate change will destroy river basins located mostly in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, China and Bhutan.

Dutch scientists Marc Bierkens, Walter Immerzee and Ludovicus Van Beek – who conducted the study and wrote in the journal -- concluded that basins around the Himalayas such as the Indus, Ganges and Brahamaputra depend on the melting glaciers to water their crops, and could see a 19.6 percent decline in their water supply by 2050. 

"We estimate that the food security of 4.5 percent of the total population will be threatened as a result of reduced water availability," the researchers wrote. "The strong need for prioritizing adaptation options and further increasing water productivity is therefore eminent."

This new study largely contrasts the U.N. report in 2007, where the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that hundreds of millions of people were in danger from the receding glaciers. According to the scientists, the reason for the "discrepancy" is that only some basins in this area depend on the glaciers. Others, such as China's Yellow River basin, obtain their water from rainfall and are expected to see a 9.5 percent increase in water supply due to the changing climate altering the pattern of monsoons. 

"We show that it's only certain areas that will be affected," said Bierkens. "The amount of people affected is still large. Every person is one too many but it's much less than was first anticipated."

In addition, the U.N. report included other errors such as the Himalayas disappearing by 2035, when actual data indicates that this will happen by 2350. Client change skeptics attacked this inaccuracy, which in fact, was just a mistake in transposing the numbers. 

Most scientists agree that "glaciers are melting at an accelerated rate as temperatures increase," and that the reason is related to the higher "atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide." Evidence for this appears in the considerable losses seen in glaciers across the Andes, Alaska, the Alps and several other ranges. According to researchers in the United States and Europe, "more than 90 percent of glaciers worldwide are in retreat."

Researchers who did not take part in the study, such as Zhongqin Li, director of the Tianshan Glaciological Station in China, noted that the scientists performing the study disregarded many other basins in central Asia and northwest China which will be affected by the glacial losses. Other glacial experts and scientists warned that "uncertainties and lack of data for the region makes it difficult to say what will happen in the next few decades to the water supply." While many researchers are skeptical of exact numbers in the study, they do agree that there should be a concern for those living in the glacial-dependent basins due to climate change. In addition, problems like pollution, overpopulation and poverty are added stress to the situation.

"The paper teaches us that there's a lot of uncertainty in the future water supply of Asia and within the realm of plausibility are scenarios that may give us concern," said Casey Brown, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Massachusetts. 

"At present, we know that water concerns are already a certainty - the large and growing populations and high dependence on irrigated agriculture which makes the region vulnerable to present climate variability. 

"This paper is additional motivation to address these present concerns through wise investments in better management of water resources in the region, which for me means forecasts, incentives, efficiency."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: More theories...
By drando on 6/11/2010 11:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Right because someone named "greenman" would clearly be unbiased?

What does a person's chosen name have to with facts? According to you, regardless of the facts, someone is right or wrong based on their name alone. Could it be that because he is well informed with the facts that he has chosen to do what he can to try and help other people and our planet to have a better future, and chosen a name in line with that? No, you're right, truth is all in a name and nothing else.

How are biased YouTube video's in ANY WAY some kind of "proof" ?

Similarly, what does the medium of a source of factual information have to do with the credibility of the info? If he appears on CNN or Fox News would that make it any more or less credible? Nope, turns out that facts are facts no matter where or how they're presented. Welcome to reality.

Peter Sinclair, the author of the Greenman3610 channel is a graphic artist, illustrator, animator, and advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives (not a scientist). He is not a scientist. That doesn't change the facts that he represents in his informational videos. Did you even bother to watch one or were you too biased against his name? He collects factual data from scientific, peer-reviewed papers and presents it in an easy to understand manner for the lay-person (you and me).

No law enforcement officials, you know, those who actually investigate for a living, were even involved.

"If you had dug a bit deeper you would see that the 'investigation' into Climategate" did include law enforcement officials. I found this in under a minute, how deep did you dig?:
Police probe UEA climate scientist over Climategate,news-comment,n...

And this one from
Police question climategate information seekers

Oh, here’s a good one from wikipedia:
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through the hacking of a server. Climate change sceptics's allegations that they revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media, provoking the controversy.The UEA and CRU issued rebuttals of the allegations.[5] Additionally, the Norfolk Constabulary is conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach.

The Norfolk Constabulary is the territorial police force responsible for the county of Norfolk in England. As of March 2009 the force had a strength of 1,668 police officers, 243 Special Constables, 277 PCSOs and just over 1,300 police staff. Does that count as law enforcement officials, you know, those who actually investigate for a living?

Damn, all that digging was tough work, I can see why you didn't bother. So much effort to type in <East Anglia University investigation> into Google.

Care to vomit any more false information or blatant lies on the forums here so you can be corrected and publicly humiliated for your overemotional, undereducated, misinformed, and biased opinions? It's painfully clear that all you have are your opinions because you offer no valid information to substantiate any of your wild claims.

RE: More theories...
By raf11 on 6/11/2010 11:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
It's no use drando, Reclaimer has been around DailyTech quite some time, perpetually pushing the same viewpoint in opposition to the facts. It's no use, he is nothing more than an internet troll.

RE: More theories...
By kyleb2112 on 6/12/2010 5:26:13 AM , Rating: 2
You mean facts like the hockey stick graph? Funny I don't see you guys defending that one so much these days.

RE: More theories...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/12/2010 9:50:32 AM , Rating: 2
He won't go there. He'll pretend it didn't happen. Just like he'll pretend the Earth hasn't, in fact, been cooling for the last 6 years. Just like he'll gloss over how the theory went from Global Warming to "Climate Change". He'll also ignore the fact that the supposed increase in violent storms hasn't happened as predicted by Climate Change, the past two hurricane seasons have been very mild. Just like he's pretending Climategate didn't show how the scientific pier review process can be tainted.

I'm not saying there is no evidence supporting man made Climate Change, but the fact is there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary. Most studies STILL ignore solar output, which we know to not be a constant and has a major impact on our global temperatures.

But hey, I'm just some looney extremist racist uneducated right wing activist hired by Daily Tech to boost readership...

RE: More theories...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/11/2010 11:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
Did you actually read the articles you "dug" up? The first one, the police were probing HOW the leak happened. Not actually investigating East Anglia for fraud.

The second one, the police are questioning those who requested information from the Climate Center. What part of investigating ClimateGate did you not apparently understand? Police probing how the hack happened isn't the same as saying there is an ongoing investigation into East Anglia's conduct of Global Warming research. But nice try.

IN fact I'm pretty sure NO local police force would be equipped for this. It would fall on some Government or International organization.

Damn, all that digging was tough work, I can see why you didn't bother. So much effort to type in <East Anglia University investigation> into Google.

I think in your haste for disproving me, you never actually read the stories. Google is great but it's not a substitute for using your brain and deductive skills.

Peter Sinclair, the author of the Greenman3610 channel is a graphic artist, illustrator, animator, and advocate of environmental awareness and energy alternatives (not a scientist). He is not a scientist.

So basically he's a biased tree hugger, and I'm supposed to be shocked at what side of this debate he is on? I mean don't you honestly think someone like that would be HIGHLY motivated with the whole "global warming" thing? Come on, be honest for once.

Someone filled your head with a bunch of lies, kid.

"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki