There was a recent discussion here about ways to reduce evaporation from pools in Arizona. The discussion soon morphed into an argument about global warming, climate change, yadda yadda yadda. One brilliant observation from a pool supporter in the desert was that there was plenty of water on the earth and that it was just a matter of distribution. Apparently solving the distribution problem would allow pool owners in the desert to continue to fill their pools. Recently, nature has sucked the water out of Lake Mead and Lake Powell and redistributed it to Kentucky. And now the Fed is considering cutting back the users of those vast reservoirs by 25%. Perhaps distribution really isn’t the solution.
I maintain that the amount of water in the world has been constant for the last million years. Over these years, it moves it's 'Distribution' (your term). Nature and mankind has and will adapt to the distribution. Those in Arizona. California, and New Mexico, where I live, will adapt and/or move.
ncribble wrote:
I maintain that the amount of water in the world has been constant for the last million years. Over these years, it moves it's 'Distribution' (your term). Nature and mankind has and will adapt to the distribution. Those in Arizona. California, and New Mexico, where I live, will adapt and/or move.
Distribution was the other guy's term, not mine. But you’re right in the sense that it’s the population that will have to be distributed to where the water is.
gvarner wrote:
... Recently, nature has sucked the water out of Lake Mead and Lake Powell and redistributed it to Kentucky. ....
Not that the increased draw-down from cities and farms served by the lake has much to do with it???
ncribble wrote:
I maintain that the amount of water in the world has been constant for the last million years...
So, no impact from 8+ billion users - and abusers - today vs. however many there were in whatever point in history you want to compare?
How many pools, golf courses, green lawns (vs. natural habitat), not to mention acres of crops to feed us 8+ billion?
Linda From Maine wrote:
So, no impact from 8+ billion users - and abusers - today vs. however many there were in whatever point in history you want to compare?
How many pools, golf courses, green lawns (vs. natural habitat), not to mention acres of crops to feed us 8+ billion?
Linda, my point is that the amount of water remains constant. How mankind decides to use this resource is a completely different subject and one that I venture not to discuss.
gvarner wrote:
There was a recent discussion here about ways to reduce evaporation from pools in Arizona. The discussion soon morphed into an argument about global warming, climate change, yadda yadda yadda. One brilliant observation from a pool supporter in the desert was that there was plenty of water on the earth and that it was just a matter of distribution. Apparently solving the distribution problem would allow pool owners in the desert to continue to fill their pools. Recently, nature has sucked the water out of Lake Mead and Lake Powell and redistributed it to Kentucky. And now the Fed is considering cutting back the users of those vast reservoirs by 25%. Perhaps distribution really isn’t the solution.
There was a recent discussion here about ways to r... (
show quote)
Gvarner,
This is a NATURAL phenomenon called the Hydrologic Cycle. Powered by the Sun, water changes from a liquid to a gas. This is called EVAPORATION and this process provides approximately 90% of the moisture in the atmosphere. The other approximate 10% is provided by a process known as TRANSPIRATION and comes from plants. When ice or snow transforms directly from a solid to a gas it is called SUBLIMATION. Together, these three natural processes, plus volcanic emissions, account for almost all the water vapor in the atmosphere that isn’t inserted through human activities (like irrigation for farming, our swimming pools, and manmade reservoirs like Lake Meade).
All this moisture entering the atmosphere is what produces rain, sleet, snow, and ice (called PRECIPITATION) starting the cycle over again. This cycle is necessary to keep life flourishing on Earth. Without it, life would disappear as we know it.
Humanity's issue is that the precipitation does not occur where and when we want it to and in the quantities we desire. Until we learn how to really control the weather, without our control hurting other locations on Earth (as this is a closed system), we will continue to experience weather-related disasters. Mitigation actions help, but they will not completely eliminate the disasters.
Daryl
Daryl
Linda From Maine wrote:
So, no impact from 8+ billion users - and abusers - today vs. however many there were in whatever point in history you want to compare?
How many pools, golf courses, green lawns (vs. natural habitat), not to mention acres of crops to feed us 8+ billion?
Still the exact same amount of water, minus whatever water has been converted into Hydrogen for fuel...
Nature recycles the same water, used in pools, watering crops, or flushing your commode. Separating hydrogen from water might reduce water quantity some, don't know what else does that, and burning hydrogen exhausts water, so not sure if that has any effect either.
ncribble wrote:
Linda, my point is that the amount of water remains constant. How mankind decides to use this resource is a completely different subject and one that I venture not to discuss.
That may be true for the world as a whole, the summation of ground, surface, and atmospheric water, but in a single environment, like a particular single reservoir, if usage exceeds replenishment, there is draw-down. And the replenishment is never a constant, it depends on precipitation. Even the wells in New Smyrna Florida are facing salt water intrusion by excessive draw-down. The the fresh water aquifer there is not able to keep up with demand.
I'm not trying to argue against the science of how much water is on earth in what form at any given time or why we currently have too much water in one place and not enough in another. I simply think it's ridiculous to talk about scientific facts while ignoring the human population of the 21st century as a major factor in the equation.
bwana
Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada
gvarner wrote:
There was a recent discussion here about ways to reduce evaporation from pools in Arizona. The discussion soon morphed into an argument about global warming, climate change, yadda yadda yadda. One brilliant observation from a pool supporter in the desert was that there was plenty of water on the earth and that it was just a matter of distribution. Apparently solving the distribution problem would allow pool owners in the desert to continue to fill their pools. Recently, nature has sucked the water out of Lake Mead and Lake Powell and redistributed it to Kentucky. And now the Fed is considering cutting back the users of those vast reservoirs by 25%. Perhaps distribution really isn’t the solution.
There was a recent discussion here about ways to r... (
show quote)
I saw stats somewhere that showed four times as much water is used to water lawns as is used in farming operations. Until people get their priorities straight there will always be a water shortage, particularly in deserts!
bwa
Longshadow wrote:
That may be true for the world as a whole, the summation of ground, surface, and atmospheric water, but in a single environment, like a particular single reservoir, if usage exceeds replenishment, there is draw-down. And the replenishment is never a constant, it depends on precipitation. Even the wells in New Smyrna Florida are facing salt water intrusion by excessive draw-down. The the fresh water aquifer there is not able to keep up with demand.
Excellent point. The Distribution is not where man wishes it to be. Man must, adapt; the natures distribution system is not going to compromise to man's desires. i.e. Smyra, Flordia
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.