

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












Comments     Threshold


By Schrag4 on 6/11/2010 2:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
...wouldn't an increase in temperature result in more arable land, overall? If you look back at earth's history to when there was 10x as much CO2 in the atmostphere, the earth was a much greener place. The deserts were rainforests. So a few relatively small regions produce less food. Overall, however, we'd have the capacity to produce much more food.

RE: But...
By clovell on 6/11/2010 2:37:28 PM , Rating: 2
The way I read it, it seems as though the new study takes that into account to some degree.

RE: But...
By drycrust3 on 6/11/2010 4:25:50 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a different link to what looks like the same report.

I think this is a load of nonsense.

The model shows that the Indus and the Brahmaputra rely most on glaciers: meltwater accounts for 60 per cent of water carried by the Indus and 20 per cent of that in the Brahmaputra, but less than 10 per cent of the Ganges, Yangtze and Yellow rivers comes from melted ice. Rainfall makes up the rest.

These results would suggest that the Indus and Brahmaputra will be hardest hit by climate change – but taking into account changes in rainfall patterns with climate change causes a different pattern to emerge, says Immerzeel.
To make up for this, he fed temperature, rainfall and snow projections into his model. He found that by 2050, the upstream flow of the Brahmaputra and Indus could shrink by 19.6 per cent and 8.4 per cent respectively, despite 25 per cent more rain.

So on the one hand we have less snow, but on the other hand we have more rain? And when they say "rain" do they mean the annual monsoon season is the same length but has 25% more downfall, or do they mean the 25% is outside of the annual monsoon season?
My guess on all this is the 25% more rain will fall on the arable land which means the farmers will be better off, not worse off.

RE: But...
By ninus3d on 6/11/2010 4:48:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is due to the fact that no glacies means no STEADY access to freshwater you currently have from freshwater glacierlakes etc. And while it may still rain, and on a yearly basis you may end up having even a bigger volume of water spewed over your lands, you dont necessarily have wateraccess when you actually need it.

