09 Jul 17
Originally posted by EladarI mean like all of it. Where do you think it will end up? Does water magically vanish when you drink it, use it for irrigation or on 'drought thirsty land'? Or does it end up somewhere?
You mean like people drinking the water? You mean like irrigation for farming? You mean like to drought thirsty land?
I'm sure there are plenty of places around the world that could use extra water.
So am I. But how much water exactly, and where does it end up?
I'm sure there are plenty of farmers and ranchers in Washington that would love free river water to help with the problem.
Its not free, or they would have done it already.
We need to be consuming more water before it reaches the oceans.
There are a number of problems with the idea:
This has been done in many places until the rivers run dry. Then the people near the coast complain because they now have no water. Or it has a negative impact on the fish that use the rivers etc.
Where does the water go? Some will go into the ground and fill up the water table - not a bad thing. But much will evaporate and back into the global water cycle. It is true that part of current sea level rise is because of water table loss from irrigation. But that is also countered by all the lakes we have created around the world.
But the reason people have depleted water tables, is it is cheap to do so. It is expensive to move water over vast distances.
Would it be nice to ship water to the Sahara and create new agricultural lands there? Its being done in Egypt. But even that idea has problems including cost, saltification and more.
But the main problem with your idea is that it would have to be done on a vast scale world wide to have any measurable impact on sea levels and would probably never be enough to counter total sea level rise from unchecked global warming.
Originally posted by Eladarif the "problem" you are referencing here is sea level rise, NO, it probably wouldn't even "ease" that problem. In fact, I think (using my science knowledge) it would probably make it even worse! Read all that I said in my last post to see why but esp the bit about albedo.
In any case, I am not saying that it will cure the problem, simply a helpful way to ease it.
Where does water end up? Much of it in the soil. There are huge parts of the US Southwest that has land thirsty for water, inches deep into the ground this soil is very dry and could hold water. At the same time this land suffering in drought could be producing plants that suck carbon out of the air and releases oxygen.
Regions in drought could get some relief. People try not to waste water having it absorb into the land because it is so expensive. In the US states charge for water from wells and streams. Stop charging people for using that water. Obviously the world has too much free water so let's start using it and feeding our dry thirsty land.
Do you live in a region that requires irrigation to grow a lawn? Almost everyone who lives in warm regions of the world could use cheaper water and more of it.
Originally posted by Eladarfirstly, this only works while the plant biomass is increasing. as soon as the plant biomass starts to decrease again, CO2 will be released back into the air and O2 absorbed from the Air; you don't seem to understand how the carbon cycle works.
At the same time this land suffering in drought could be producing plants that suck carbon out of the air and releases oxygen.
Also, unfortunately, what little carbon fixation may result from irrigating the land would probably be more than offset by the reduction in albedo;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo
and this will result in MORE global warming, NOT LESS, thus make the problem EVEN WORSE!
And here I have only mentioned SOME of the serious problems with your idea that simply couldn't ever work.
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by humyHow do you think the carbon made its way underground to begin with? It was originally plant material.
firstly, this only works while the plant biomass is increasing. as soon as the plant biomass starts to decrease again, CO2 will be released back into the air and O2 absorbed from the Air; you don't seem to understand how the carbon cycle works.
Also, unfortunately, what little carbon fixation may result from irrigating the land would probably be more than of ...[text shortened]... have only mentioned SOME of the serious problems with your idea that simply couldn't ever work.
We have plenty of arid land that can hold water, let alone the carbon trapped in plants which can then be trapped in living creatures who can then be buried.
But hey, I know you have problems thinking outside your box.
Originally posted by Eladar
How do you think the carbon made its way underground to begin with? It was originally plant material.
We have plenty of arid land that can hold water, let alone the carbon trapped in plants which can then be trapped in living creatures who can then be buried.
But hey, I know you have problems thinking outside your box.
How do you think the carbon made its way underground to begin with? It was originally plant material.
This happens over many millions of years and generally not to the plants we irrigate so that want help us at all here with the current problem. In fact, I have already explained why it would probably make the problem even worse!
We have plenty of arid land that can hold water,
I thought you just acknowledged that it generally all evaporates off when we irrigate the land?
The land generally only "holds" some temporarily and only a limited amount which then generally all evaporates off and ends up in the oceans; not much help then to the problem of sea level rise!
let alone the carbon trapped in plants which can then be trapped in living creatures who can then be buried.
Do you think that happens a lot when we irrigate?
+ what about the resulting decrease in albedo from greening the land which may result in MORE global warming?
But hey, I know you have problems thinking outside your box.
No, I think just fine. One doesn't need to think outside your box to see why a bad idea is bad. One thing I DO have a problem with is with you neither thinking outside the box or thinking inside the box.
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by EladarNow pull out a world map and compare:
Where does water end up? Much of it in the soil. There are huge parts of the US Southwest that has land thirsty for water, inches deep into the ground this soil is very dry and could hold water.
1. The size of the US Southwest
2. The size of the worlds oceans.
At the same time this land suffering in drought could be producing plants that suck carbon out of the air and releases oxygen.
Sure. But what does it actually cost to irrigate the whole of the US Southwest ?
You do know that large parts of the US are already irrigated by redirected rivers? Do you know what it cost to do so? Do you know why that practice didn't extend further?
Regions in drought could get some relief. People try not to waste water having it absorb into the land because it is so expensive.
Exactly.
In the US states charge for water from wells and streams. Stop charging people for using that water.
Water from wells, is water from underground. The very storage location you suggest filling up.
You seem confused.
Obviously the world has too much free water so let's start using it and feeding our dry thirsty land.
Except it isn't free, is it?
Do you live in a region that requires irrigation to grow a lawn? Almost everyone who lives in warm regions of the world could use cheaper water and more of it.
Sure they could. So where is this 'cheaper water' going to come from? Who will pay for it? Your taxes?
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by Metal BrainI have a pond out back that had water levels rise over the spring, but then declined during the summer, if that helps at all.
Rather than debating temperature rises and the cherry picking of data from different sources it may be better to gauge glacier melting with sea level rise since that is where the melting ends up.
Nils-Axel Mörner says sea levels are not increasing at an alarming rate. Is he wrong and if so by how much?
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by humyYour claims of being a scientist increase in suspicion with every one of your posts.How do you think the carbon made its way underground to begin with? It was originally plant material.
This happens over many millions of years and generally not to the plants we irrigate so that want help us at all here with the current problem. In fact, I have already explained why it would probably make the problem even worse!
[quote] ...[text shortened]... DO have a problem with is with you neither thinking outside the box or thinking inside the box.
"Millions of years"?!?
the series of processes by which carbon compounds are interconverted in the environment, chiefly involving the incorporation of carbon dioxide into living tissue by photosynthesis and its return to the atmosphere through respiration, the decay of dead organisms, and the burning of fossil fuels.
Why should anyone believe anything you put forth?
You're a fount of falsity and confusion.
Maybe you'd do better in Science Fiction?
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou are a friggiing hypocrite, bitching at me for ad hominems while you are doing exactly the same to real scientists, which I make no claims to be. I am a highly trained technician with engineering skills but no scientist with a Phd.
Your claims of being a scientist increase in suspicion with every one of your posts.
"Millions of years"?!?
[quote]the series of processes by which carbon compounds are interconverted in the environment, chiefly involving the incorporation of carbon dioxide into living tissue by photosynthesis and its return to the atmosphere through respiration, the dec ...[text shortened]... put forth?
You're a fount of falsity and confusion.
Maybe you'd do better in Science Fiction?
10 Jul 17
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWow you are unbelievably dense; I said nothing that contradicted that and you seem to not understand that he and I was obviously talking specifically about FOSSIL FUELS which generally DO take "Millions of years" to form in any significant quantity to lock out significant amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.
"Millions of years"?!?
[quote]the series of processes by which carbon compounds are interconverted in the environment, chiefly involving the incorporation of carbon dioxide into living tissue by photosynthesis and its return to the atmosphere through respiration, the dec put forth?
?
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by humyDense?
Wow you are unbelievably dense; I said nothing that contradicted that and you seem to not understand that he and I was obviously talking specifically about FOSSIL FUELS which generally DO take "Millions of years" to form in any significant quantity to lock out significant amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere.
As in populated?
Hard to tell with you, as you'll change definitions, you'll change topics, you'll change entire conversations in a convoluted attempt to cover how idiotic your comments are.
You were responding to someone who SPECIFICALLY was talking about plant-based carbon--- which you clearly knew, or should have known, since you freaking quoted it in your response.
Good God.
You and sonhouse are so close in thickness, i.e., stupidity, it's a wonder he doesn't eat just so you can s*** it out.
10 Jul 17
10 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHno, not specific enough; Apparently you cannot follow the conversation. I responded to;
You were responding to someone who SPECIFICALLY was talking about plant-based carbon-.
Originally posted by Eladar
How do you think the carbon made its way underground to begin with? It was originally plant material.
from the word "underground" above he was CLEARLY talking about fossil fuels and not the more generic "plant-based carbon" which can include currently living plants; or do you think vegetation is generally all "underground"?
In addition, from the above "It was originally plant material", he was CLEARLY not referring to living nor currently decaying plant material but fossil fuels; or do you think "It was originally" generally means ""It is now"?
Tell me, exactly how can you possibly interpret what he is referring to in his above comment in such a way as to include the carbon in currently LIVING plants?
10 Jul 17
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWe would be moving waters from West of the Continental divide to the Southwest. Compare the volume of wayer flowing into the oceans to the size of the desert. Eaters on the Eastern side of the Rockies could be used to irrigate fields and water livestick and supply water for people. This would also lessen our need to deplete aquifers.
Now pull out a world map and compare:
1. The size of the US Southwest
2. The size of the worlds oceans.
[b]At the same time this land suffering in drought could be producing plants that suck carbon out of the air and releases oxygen.
Sure. But what does it actually cost to irrigate the whole of the US Southwest ?
You do know that large parts o ...[text shortened]... hey could. So where is this 'cheaper water' going to come from? Who will pay for it? Your taxes?[/b]
Of course the same idea could be used in other countries around the world. Perhaps we could actually start to refill the Aral Sea
10 Jul 17
Originally posted by humy
no, not specific enough; Apparently you cannot follow the conversation. I responded to;
Originally posted by Eladarto begin with? It was originally plant material.
How do you think the carbon made its way [b]underground
from the word "underground" above he was CLEARLY talking about fossil fuels and not the more generic "pla ...[text shortened]... rring to in his above comment in such a way as to include the carbon in currently LIVING plants?[/b]Take the plants and bury them before they decay or let animals eat them and bury the carcass before it decays.
Think outside the box. Every little bit helps.