Canada’s Only True Desert
- Thread starter Glacier
- Start date
According to what I've heard Greenland is shedding a lot of water on an annual basis, as is one side of Antarctica.
They are gradually getting smaller just about everywhere on earth, though indicating a net loss of water stored in that "reservoir".
Except that more is going out than in.
You asked a couple of posts ago if Lake Superior disappeared, wouldn't the same amount of water flow down the St. Lawrence. The answer is no. If the lakes weren't there, it would be very much drier, here well in the interior of a continent, a long way from the sea. The Lakes create their own weather and the climate near them is both maritime and continental at the same time. There is so much potential power in the Lakes that back in the early 1950s, Tropical Storm Hazel parked itself over Lake Erie for a couple of days, recharged its batteries, hit Toronto as Hurricane Hazel that killed 88 people. The Lakes, btw are still primarily glacial melt water and not accumulated rain waster. If they go down (and it looks as if there is less water in the system now,) they probably won't be recharged until the next glacial advance, retreat.
Yes, we get the raising and lowering of lakes, rivers, glaciers, reservoirs, etc. over time, but all water comes from precipitation. the excess water from melting glaciers in the Great Lakes has washed out to sea thousands of years ago. You get some dry years, and the lakes go down. Then you get a big wet year or two, and the lakes fill to the top.
There might be the odd small creek in the west that is only sustained because of an extremely fast melting glacier, but here's the other thing. If you are relying on melting glaciers you are not living a sustainable life. If the glaciers stop retreating or if they grow, you're in huge trouble. Anyone who relies on glaciers for their water is an idiot asking for trouble in the long term.
So, in generation or two when the Columbia Ice Fields are all gone, the rivers that drain it will continue as long with the same volume of water in them.
There is something truly magical about that. Water from ... somewhere ... in a naturally arid place.
There is something truly magical about that. Water from ... somewhere ... in a naturally arid place.
Here in the Okanagan drainage basin the rivers continue to flow despite the fact that the glaciers melted 1000s of years ago. Rain falls. Snow falls. Snow melts. It soaks into the ground and it flows downhill.
The same will be true for the Columbia river and other rivers that start in the area. The glaciers are half of what they were 100 years ago, and yet the rivers are still flowing at the same rate. Why? Because the rain falls and the snow falls just like it did 100 years ago. They will still be flowing 100 years from now when the glaciers are gone. This is not magic, nor a hard concept to grasp.
Last edited:
Well, it's nonsense if the reservoir thast has been your major source of water is running out of material. The fairies will make up the shortfall, I guess.
You remind me of the inhabitants of the Mid West US who believe in an endless Great Aquifer, even as it goes down-down-down.
You remind me of the inhabitants of the Mid West US who believe in an endless Great Aquifer, even as it goes down-down-down.
Evidently the glacier has not been the major source of water. Let's put it this way. The Columbia glacier loses 2 tonnes of ice per year, but the amount of rain in the area amounts to 2 million tonnes of water. Therefore the ice melting accounts for 0.0001% of the total water leaving the area.
Is this a travel bureau spam post. You're just trying to drum up tourist dollars for the region, right?
Well if that's not what you were shooting for I'm afraid that is what you've done.
If you were shooting for that, bravo.
So if the lakes aren't there where do you figure the rain is going to land? Or you figure the lakes attract the clouds?
The Lakes make whole weather systems.
Remember every winter when Upstate New York gets ten foot snow falls?
Oh, what am I thinking. No news from the mysterious East ...
Anyway, the Lakes are big enough in total to produce their own climate. Normally, the central part of a continent is usually arid. This continent is unusual in having a great inland sea ( all five lakes together) at its heart.
So you're admitting that it's precipitation after all that determines a river's size! Good, I'm glad that we've finally come to the same conclusion!
Fair enough. This should temper my shameless promotion of Osoyoos: http://www.osoyoostimes.com/visiting-family-disgusted-by-actions-of-transients/
The Great Lakes are still mostly glacial meltwater from the great continental glacier that terminated there.
That's one hilarious comment on your part. The residence time of Lake Superior is 191 years. That means that it takes 191 years for the volume of water entering the lake to equal the volume of water in the lake.
All of those molecules have changed themselves out, eh?
Maybe .. in the shallow places like Erie or Southern Huron.
Maybe .. in the shallow places like Erie or Southern Huron.
Yes they have. If you fill a cup with water right to the top, the put it under the tap for
an hour, all the original water is going to be gone in all likelihood.
The deepest Lakes ... Superior, Ontario, do not have much movement in their depths and I understood that it is surface water that flows in and out. It is very cold and still down there. The Lakes don't have deep ocean currents and the 1°C bottom water doesn't constantly mix it up with the 15°c surface. Like a parfait dessert, the densities are sufficiently different that one sits on the other and the outflow slides off of the top. Erie is shallow and the whole body moves downstream but maybe not so, Ontario.
