In a message dated 3/26/00 4:25:05 PM Pacific Standard Time,
neptune@mars.superlink.net writes:
> curtadams@aol.com writes:
> > The rift valley isn't large enough to affect the whole world's climate or
> > ecology directly.
>
> No? I see it extending from Ethiopia to the great lakes of Africa
> (Victoria, etc.). That's a rather large area.
Almost all of that area is way above sea level. Besides, even large lakes
appear and disappear without global effect. The Aral Sea has largely
dried up over the last 40 years and nobody's noticed save the locals.
>On the ecology side, there's the exploitation of an inland sea by Red Sea
>lifeforms.
Not much of a benefit there except over the very long run. We already
have the Red Sea organisms; lost Rift Valley organisms will be just gone.
Biomass is secondary unless it's an exploited resource, and then the
benefit is, once again, to us.
>> The flow rate would have to exceed evaporation
>> from the entire flooded valley, and that's a lot.
>> There are several places
>> where large river flows still don't suffice to raise a
>> sea even close to sea level
>> (e.g., the Caspian Sea)
>But the case with the Caspian Sea is a bit different right now. The problem
> seems to be not inflow or evaporation but outflow into irrigation and other
>water use projects. This is akin to what's happened to the Colorado River.
>It no longer reaches the Gulf of California because of overuse and the dam.
That's the Aral Sea. The Caspian has shrunk somewhat, but it's
always been far below sea level in spite of having a large river (the Volga)
empty into it. The problem with the Caspian is more pollution than
shrinkage.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:06:36 MDT