********************************EXCERPT****************************************
BravoZulu says:
“Retreating glaciers would lessen the river’s overall flow, but that impact would likely be more dramatic as the region’s population growth increases the demand for water.”
When precipitation falls on glaciers and doesn’t melt, the glacier grows. That obviously isn’t going to end up in streams anytime soon. When glaciers retreat, more water is melted and it adds to the rivers. That seems pretty basic and obvious. How are retreating glaciers going to reduce the water in Rivers. That would be the case if it didn’t melt and it accumulated water. Do these people not think that the amount of precipitation plus the melt equals the amount in rivers. They seem to have it backwards. I would think they would be more worried about glaciers expanding and the water not making it to the rivers. I must be too dumb to see that 2+2=4.
Don’t ask them about Boyle’s Law. It makes their heads hurt.
I’m usually the one who poses that logical question :-)
In the long run, rivers can only be fed by seasonal snowfall and meltoff, just like in our Rocky Mountain west. The presence or absence of a semi-permanent glacier is irrelevant except that the current alleged melting is a temporary river water bonus. If the glaciers were static or growing, there would be less water today and the current growing season at certain altitudes would be shorter or non-existent. (This being the tropics to the south, the seasons are monsoonal rather than temperature-driven below the temperate altitude zone.)