Will Humans ever really learn to conserve fresh water or continue to waste it now?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by elusive, Dec 8, 2013.

  1. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Right. And if we just spray it all into the air - even better! Everyone will win.

    For God's sake read a book on water resource planning.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    I understand and largely agree with what you are saying. However and again, not entirely true. Your arguement is for reducing land that needs irrigation.

    In fact, the true answer is for increased efficiency of irrigation.

    View attachment 6782
    View attachment 6783

    Also, runoff due to streets and storm drain also has a major effect on urban environments. As does rooves on houses.

    So, the idea is to capture water in lakes and so forth and then also to use it as efficiently as possible.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    :bugeye:
    Kwhilborn :wallbang::wallbang: YOU HAVE TO BE HIGH. Did you even read that article?!? It clearly points out the human impact on the water cycle that completely altered the ecosystem!!! "After wading through 150 years of human-caused changes on the land that included the exclusion of fire, many, many grazing cows and sheep and the introduction of Rocky Mountain elk, researchers believe pioneers experienced a much different northern Arizona than what we see today." If you would have read the complete article in it's entirety you would have noticed these thick woodlands were not there before humans came along! Open woodlands was the phrase used. Having plants and animals that weren't even suppose to be in that area to begin with obviously alters the ecosystem.... Your previous statement (like all of your statements) that somehow pine trees were to blame for our water shortages was imprudent and ignorant.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Wow. Smh.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Trippy,

    I am unsure of your point. Excellent photo of a fish ladder though.

    I have said the water cycle is for the most part unchanged (excluding GW), and that water shortages are to do with overuse. It is my claim here that the water cycle is unrelated (aside from Global Warming trends) to water shortages.

    It is my claim that as much fresh water will fall on land as it did a million years ago.

    I (thought I ) had in a much earlier post mentioned pumping water from an unconfined aquifer at a faster than sustainable rate (overdraft) can cause instability in the land. I (thought I) used mexico city as an example. I look back over posts and realize I had not mentioned this (maybe its there). Potholes, sinkholes, and other soil instabilities can arise from the overdraft.

    Found it.... (post 31) ... I wrote.
    They will/have lost buildings over this.

    @ Trippy,

    I am not sure what you are trying to convey here.

    @ Billvon,

    There is not as much need for water resource planning where I live, but we can see micro versions of the problems. I am not sure of your point still. How are we disagreeing? If I have a view contrary to yours about this I will happily defend it, but I'm not sure you have voiced it yet.

    @ Gage,

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread...waste-it-now&p=3144046&viewfull=1#post3144046

    You were obviously wrong. You now say Pine trees are the culprits because of man.. Sigh.

    Paving over wetlands might not be great for wildlife conservation, but it will not affect the Water Cycle as you claim.

    @ Gage,

    You are also quoting me out of context...

    like this...
    with your retarded
    comment.

    I was responding to this comment.
    It remains true that watering my lawn will in fact not hurt anyone. So that statement was false because it was all encompassing.

    @ Billvon, Trippy,

    I am unclear on how your views are different than mine.. please clarify. I have said repeatedly that Infrastructure/Energy/Cost are involved in cities with lower resources. (This includes resource planning)

    My point from my first post here on is that we will not need to tap water from asteroids as Gage suggested.

    @ Gage,

    Sigh...
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2013
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Well, my argument is to reduce water needed for irrigation. One way is to eliminate ornamental things like laws. Another way is to re-use relatively clean (but 'used') water for irrigation. A third way is to increase irrigation efficiency as you mention.

    That is one part of the answer.
     
  9. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Billvon,

    Unrelated to topic or any other posts, but what about something white added to the surface of crops.

    The original idea would be to cover a crop with a white or reflective cover. I have also thought about some sort of harmless soil paint/whitewash if something could be invented like this.

    I have had this idea for ages, but I have no idea if such a harmless whitewash is possible.

    I recall I thought the evaporation involved in hurricanes could be thwarted by introducing a tankerful of dish soap into the affected sea. The idea being the white suds might curb evaporation. The idea evolved into a zillion ping pong balls doing the same.

    I realize the ocean ideas are impractical, but I was young at the time.

    I still think some sort of soil whitewash/fertilizer might be doable someday, and would not be surprised if it has been done on some scale. There's a million dollar idea for some chemistry student.
     
  10. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    Seconded. Irony: It happens to be part of my job.
     
  11. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    Like this?? :

    Glass Mulch

    http://www.fisherrecycling.com/products/glass_aggregate_products/
     
  12. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    Again, true and untrue. Turf science has evolved to account for these issues.

    See Habiturf:

    http://www.wildflower.org/habiturf/

    No mowing, very little water needed, drought is irrelevant. Hence, Habiturf

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    What is untrue in the above?
     
  14. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    Since we've begun to debate human landscaping and water conservation, and since AGW has been injected into the discussion regarding the water cycle.

    I inject Seven Layer Forests. Boom:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_gardening

    This landscaping has multiple effects.

    1. Water retention and storage
    2. Shade produces up to (i cant remember the exact figure, so..) 5-10 degrees temperature stablization
    3. Food
    4. Increased bio-activity

    Seattle, Oregon recently made a public space they call a 'food forest.'

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beacon_Food_Forest


    OP: Will we learn? That can only be predicted. "Can we learn?" Yes
     
  15. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    You are stating that 'one way is to eliminate things like ornamental lawns.'

    True.

    The 'untrue' portion was incorrectly stated by myself. I should have said that it is unnecessary to eliminate lawns. Rather, we should use better turf science.

    Apologies
     
  16. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Billvon and Trippy,

    You act as if this thread applies to all. Mankind does not need to conserve water. It is only pockets of humanity that "need" to conserve water. You both seem to miss this point. I have 5500 cubic miles of freshwater attached to my property.
     
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    That's because, umm, it does.

    You prattle on about the water cycle. Your prattle ignores the facts that the water cycle is governed by rates. If the rate at which water is used, regardless of its source, exceeds the rate at which the water is replenished, then the water usage is unsustainable and the water source will eventually. The fact that you have 550 milliom cubic miles of freshwater attached to your property is irrelevant if the rate at which the water is taken from that source exceeds the rate at which the water cycle replenishes it, the source will eventually dry up.

    My point was, and is well spelled out - when your consumption of water exceeds the ability of the water cycle to replenish it, you must import water from another source.

    While you prattle about the water cycle, you ignore the fact that humans directly intervene in it by retaining water in reservoirs and dams. Humans have altered the hydrologic cycle with the amount of additional water we have detained on land. You prattle about cycles, and then ignore the timescale of those cycles.
     
  18. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Yes, we do. Not everywhere, of course, but in most places in the US alone we are experiencing what happens when people decide "I don't have to conserve." See map below,

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    And the US has truly massive infrastructure dedicated to moving water around. Most parts of the world are not so fortunate - and thus conservation is even more important.

    And I have a creek in the canyon I live on that could give me cubic miles of water a year. We still have water shortages in San Diego - and (combined with the rest of Southern California) are emptying the Colorado River. "I can see a lot of water from where I live" is a poor criterion on which to base the need to conserve.
     
  19. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165
    This is getting ridiculous... No wonder this country is so screwed up.
     
  20. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    You are wrong, sir!!

    Screwed up implies we are still well put together.

    We are 'unscrewed.'

    Get a drill.

    [obvious sarcasm]
     
  21. kwhilborn Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,088
    @ Billvon,Trippy,

    You both quote"Mankind does not need to conserve water", and yet ignore the following sentence I wrote which was...

    Which we all seem to be in agreement upon.

    I will argue this because I do not think conservation of water in Ontario will help you folks in dry areas.

    @ Trippy,

    I think I agree with most everything you have said on this thread. I do not see how you can make agreements sound like arguing the way you do. I have even given examples of overdraft hurting cities physically. I realize infrastructure is the only remedy for many. One of the reasons is too many Americans are sun seekers. Detroit has lots of water.

    Maybe they will start siphoning the great lakes soon enough, but then we will just have to send our military to burn down your Whitehouse again.
     
  22. Peregrine Registered Member

    Messages:
    90
    Well, what I can say about the discrepancy is this: US agriculture previously provided the food for the whole world. The are many other more modern agriculture operations around the world now. So much of the irrigation was US based.

    Therefore 'humanity' did need to conserve because 'humanity' was dependant on the mid west US agriculture.

    I dont think this arguement is too much of a stretch. But again, more modern agriculture has spread elsewhere. Also, computer software has made agiculture and land acquisition much more efficient.
     
  23. Gage Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    165

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     

Share This Page