Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the concept of landlocked lakes, exploring definitions, examples, and the implications of being landlocked. Participants examine whether any lakes can truly be considered landlocked given the interconnectedness of water bodies and the varying definitions of the term.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Exploratory
Main Points Raised
- Some participants argue that all bodies of water are interconnected, questioning the validity of the term "landlocked."
- Others assert that there are indeed landlocked bodies of water, citing the Caspian Sea as an example, which they claim has no rivers flowing out of it.
- Several participants clarify that "landlocked" can mean having no navigable route to the sea rather than the absence of rivers entirely.
- One participant notes that the Caspian Sea has rivers flowing into it but none flowing out, emphasizing the importance of the definition of landlocked.
- Another participant mentions that Canada has numerous lakes, many of which are isolated and do not have a source of water other than glaciers or ice sheets.
- Discussion includes the concept of endorheic basins, with examples like the Great Salt Lake and the Sea of Aral, which are described as terminal lakes where water collects but does not flow out.
- Participants raise questions about lakes formed in volcanic or impact craters, suggesting these may also be considered landlocked.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus on the definition of landlocked lakes, with multiple competing views on what constitutes being landlocked and whether any lakes can truly be classified as such.
Contextual Notes
Definitions of "landlocked" vary among participants, leading to ambiguity in the discussion. The examples provided, such as the Caspian Sea and endorheic basins, highlight the complexity of the topic.