Basically unacho argue hapa ni kwamba hakuna mto unaopata maji yake kutokana na theluji ya mlima Kilimanjaro.
Hapo unanilisha maneno chifu.
Ninachokisema (kwa msaada wa tafiti zilizofanyika Mlima KLM), ni kwamba, mchango wa theluji katika mfumo wa maji kwenye hiyo ikolojia ni 'almost scientifically insignificant'. Sababu zilizotolewa nimeshakwambia: theluji kubwa uisha kwa kwenda kwenye hali ya ugesi na ile ya mchango wa 'cloud forest' kutoka kwenye montane forest zone.
Mimi hadi nimekutajia mtu mwenye 'authority' katika hilo, bwana Andreas Hemp.
Sasa kama wewe una ushahidi wa mchango wa theluji katika mito, basi onyesha hapa.
Since this is a worldwide phenomenon that happens even in temperate climes, and even if this effect may not be as pronounced in tropical climes, due to sublimation taking primacy over melting, one would expect an acknowledgement of this modest contribution since in ecology it is not unheard of to have a tailspinning "butterfly effect".
If it's about acknowledging such kind of modest contribution, there is no problem with me and the scientific world.
My only problem is with this kind of statement,
"Barafu ikikauka maana yake mito inayopata maji kutokana na barafu ya mlima nayo itakauka", which is completely ridiculous in the context of melting glaciers in Mt. KLM.
You are tossing aside the entire notion.
http://www.ce.utexas.edu/prof/mckinney/ce397/Topics/Glaciers/Glaciers_2010.pdf
The Shrinking Glaciers of Kilimanjaro: Can Global Warming Be Blamed? » American Scientist
Whether the ice is melting or sublimating is a technical distinction without a difference in the end results, since the end result is removal of H20 from the immediate hydrology of the mountain.
As for glaciers melting causing sea levels to rise, the density of ice about is 0.9167 g/cm3 while that of water is about 1g/ cm3. That means the same cm3 would contain one gram of water as it would 0.9167 grams of ice. You can pack more H2O matter in a cm3 in the form of ice than you can pack in the form of water. That means if you have a cup filled with ice to the brim, and you let it melt into water, the cup will overflow, because there will be an increase of matter in volume by a factor of 0.0833 for every cm3.
This is rather elementary, unless you have another expert study to counter this basic fact with another distinction without a difference.
Who is shooting himself in the foot now?
Ok. Here is the counter argument.
The forests of Kilimanjaro above 1300m a.s.l. receive nearly 1600 million cubic meters water annually, 95% by rainfall and ca. 5% by fog interception. About 500 million cubic meters of water (31%) percolate into the groundwater or into streams. If one assumes that fog precipitation is close to zero once the forest is destroyed, the loss of 150km2 of subalpine forests since 1976 corresponds to an estimated loss of 20 million cubic meters of fogwater deposition per year. This is more than a quarter of the estimated annual fogwater yield of the whole forest belt or equivalent to the annual water demand of the 1 million inhabitants on Kilimanjaro (according to numbers given by United Republic of Tanzania and CES, 2002). In contrast, the average annual water output of the 2.6km2 of glaciers can be estimated at only 1 million cubic meters (5%).
Cloud forests are of great importance for watersheds in East Africa (Pocs, 1976). In addition to the function of filtering and storing water, the upper montane and subalpine cloud forests have a high potential of collecting cloud water (cp. e.g. Cavelier & Goldstein, 1989; Juvik & Nullet, 1993; Cavelier et al., 1996; Bruijnzeel, 2001). Fog interception increases with altitude, and so does its contribution to water yielding. Thus, the loss of cloud forests because of climate-induced fires as well as the loss of montane forest because of clearing causes a considerable reduction and enhanced variability of water yields of the Kilimanjaro catchments, affecting over 1 million people living on the mountain, by far exceeding the hydrological consequences of the loss of the glaciers.
Compared with these landscape changes, the hydrological significance of the melting of the glaciers is almost negligible. However, the disappearance of the glaciers is an alarming indicator of the substantial changes in the Kilimanjaro environment. At current rates of incidence, fires will have made most of Kilimanjaro's high-altitude forests extinct within the next few years, and with this, the mountain will have lost its most effective water source in the fog interception
zone. With its glaciers, Kilimanjaro will lose a part of its beauty and an important archive of paleoclimatic records (Thompson, 2000); with its forests, it loses its major ecosystem service to a water-demanding society.
Source: Hemp, 2005. Climate change-driven forest fires marginalize the impact of ice cap wasting on Kilimanjaro.
Global Change Biology 11: 1013-1023.
Are you denying basic physics?
Melting ice a 'sleeping giant' that will push sea levels higher, scientist says
John Roach NBC News
- Facebook Share on Facebook
- Twitter
- LinkedIn
- GooglePlus
- Email
Dec. 13, 2013 at 3:18 PM ET
Melting ice a 'sleeping giant' that will push sea levels higher, scientist says - NBC News.com
Endelea hapa
Melting ice a 'sleeping giant' that will push sea levels higher, scientist says - NBC News.com
That has been highly politicised, neglecting scientific facts about melting ice at the Arctic/Greenland and sea level rising.
What I am trying to say is, it is very true that melting ice does lead to sea level rising, but when compared to thermal expansion of ocean water as a result of increased global temperature, its contribution isn't significant.
Check out this:
One effect of global warming that everyone has heard about is a rise in sea levels. About half of this rise is due to thermal expansion: Ocean temperatures are rising, and as water warms it expands. Put a nearly full cup of water in a microwave and heat it, and the water will spill over the cup.........and of course the actual sea level would be much higher due to thermal expansion of the world's oceans as they warm.
Source: Thompson, L. 2010. Climate change: The evidence and our options.
The Behavior Analyst 33(2): 153-170.