Water Levels Dropping in Some of the World’s Major Rivers
22 April 2009
Rivers in some of the world’s most populous regions are losing water, according to a comprehensive study of global stream flows. The research, led by scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo., suggests that the reduced flows in many cases are associated with climate change, and could potentially threaten future supplies of food and water.
The results will be published 15 May in the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), NCAR’s sponsor.
The distribution of the world’s fresh water, already an important topic, will occupy front and center stage for years to come in developing adaptation strategies to a changing climate.—Cliff Jacobs of NSF’s Division of Atmospheric Sciences
The scientists, who examined stream flows from 1948 to 2004, found significant changes in about one-third of the world’s largest rivers. Of those, rivers with decreased flow outnumbered those with increased flow by a ratio of about 2.5 to 1.
Several of the rivers channeling less water serve large populations, including the Yellow River in northern China, the Ganges in India, the Niger in West Africa and the Colorado in the southwestern United States.
In contrast, the scientists reported greater stream flows over sparsely populated areas near the Arctic Ocean, where snow and ice are rapidly melting.
Reduced runoff is increasing the pressure on freshwater resources in much of the world, especially with more demand for water as population increases. Freshwater being a vital resource, the downward trends are a great concern.—NCAR scientist Aiguo Dai, the lead author of the journal paper
Many factors may affect river discharge, including dams and the diversion of water for agriculture and industry. The researchers found, however, that the reduced flows in many cases appear to be related to global climate change, which is altering precipitation patterns and increasing the rate of evaporation.
The results are consistent with previous research by Dai and others showing widespread drying and increased drought over many land areas. The study raises wider ecological and climate concerns.
Discharge from the world’s great rivers results in deposits of dissolved nutrients and minerals into the oceans. The freshwater flow also affects global ocean circulation patterns, which are driven by changes in salinity and temperature, and which play a vital role in regulating the world’s climate.
Although the recent changes in freshwater discharge are relatively small and may only have impacts around major river mouths, Dai said the freshwater balance in the global oceans and over land needs to be monitored for long-term changes.
Scientists have been uncertain about the impacts of global warming on the world’s major rivers. Studies with computer models show that many of the rivers outside the Arctic could lose water because of decreased precipitation in the mid- and lower latitudes, and an increase in evaporation caused by higher temperatures. Earlier, less comprehensive analyses of major rivers had indicated, however, that global stream flow was increasing.
Dai and his co-authors analyzed the flows of 925 of the planet’s largest rivers, combining actual measurements with computer-based stream flow models to fill in data gaps. The rivers in the study drain water from every major landmass except Antarctica and Greenland and account for 73% of the world’s total stream flow.
Overall, the study found that, from 1948 to 2004, annual freshwater discharge into the Pacific Ocean fell by about 6%, or 526 cubic kilometers—approximately the same volume of water that flows out of the Mississippi River each year.
The annual flow into the Indian Ocean dropped by about 3%, or 140 cubic kilometers. In contrast, annual river discharge into the Arctic Ocean rose about 10%, or 460 cubic kilometers.
In the United States, the Columbia River’s flow declined by about 14% during the 1948-2004 study period, largely because of reduced precipitation and higher water usage in the West. The Mississippi River, however, has increased by 22% over the same period because of greater precipitation across the Midwest since 1948.
Some rivers, such as the Brahmaputra in South Asia and the Yangtze in China, have shown stable or increasing flows. But they could lose volume in future decades with the gradual disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers feeding them, the scientists say.
As climate change inevitably continues in coming decades, we are likely to see greater impacts on many rivers and the water resources that society has come to rely on.—NCAR scientist Kevin Trenberth, a co-author of the paper
Luckily this is all a Natural process and has nothing to do with Global Warming [/sarcasm]
Posted by: dursun | 22 April 2009 at 07:41 AM
Notice almost all areas most impacted are fed by runoff from winter snow or glacier melt .
Posted by: JMartin | 22 April 2009 at 07:51 AM
Have you noted the extreme variations not associated with glaciers melting?
New York City area has gone down while neighboring areas have gone up. Is it due to water usage by NYC and vincinity?
Most of Uraguay and Paraguay have gone up at the highest rate for no apparent reasons.
The Mississipi River basis have gone up without the help of melting glaciers.
The final complete report may explain those esceptions.
Posted by: HarveyD | 22 April 2009 at 08:10 AM
Harvey, this might help answer your questions;
dursun, should we believe you or climatologists? No offense, but my vote goes to the latter.
Posted by: Will S | 22 April 2009 at 11:24 AM
Greetings, its been a long time.
"For the week ended April 17, petroleum consumption dropped by more than 2 million barrels per day, compared with the same period last year."
2 whopping million barrel sounds a lot.
Is it a good thing or bad thing?
Posted by: rexis | 22 April 2009 at 05:21 PM
Because we are nearing (or past) the peak in global oil production, reducing oil consumption is a GREAT thing. If we don't, resource limitations will force a reduction on us, with skyrocketing prices and unprecendented economic consequences. Please give us your opinion of the following US DoE report;
Posted by: Will S | 23 April 2009 at 07:31 AM
The funny bit here is now that only 34% of the public believe the global warming bit - stuff like this gets thrown to the wind.
"Exaggeration leads to coalition of disbelief."
Posted by: Reel$$ | 25 April 2009 at 06:42 AM
More fake statistics from Reel$$. Straight from the CO2garbage sites.
Posted by: aym | 20 June 2009 at 12:50 PM