Is Water Redistribution To Control Climate Change A Viable Option ?

Is water redistribution to control climate change a viable option ?

  • Water redistribution to control climate change is a viable option .

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Water redistribution to control climate change is not a viable option .

    Votes: 3 75.0%
  • Water redistribution is too expensive .

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Water redistribution would be effective against wildfires and desertification .

    Votes: 1 25.0%
  • Water for redistribution is not available .

    Votes: 1 25.0%

  • Total voters
    4
The salt would be problematic. Better to find ways to moderate rainfall by greening up the earth, more grasslands, permanent pastureland, etc.
Yes the salt would poison the soil to an extent...but I really believe it would be beneficial.
There are some wonderful briney habitats on the shore regions of several continents.
In any case I'm betting it would be a great place to hide excess water...
 
Problem is that these people's OWN GOVERNMENTS ought to be creating the opportunities and fixing the problems there themselves making themselves and them all productive and self-actualized, instead of expecting the USA to "help them."

The problem with mass immigration is that it reveals a problem best fixed THERE, instead of dumping it on others.

If things were good THERE, they wouldn't need or want to "immigrate."

Like Haiti? ... you want to send in the Marines ... again ??? ...

I think the mistake you're making is not realizing video clips and cell phone captures all require electricity ... where there is no electricity, there are no videos or image captures ... we only see the poverty where there is electricity ... it's like the poorest 20% of us is "out of sight and out of mind" ...

I know, you want everyone else to sacrifice because you don't want to ... how MAGA ...
 
Yes the salt would poison the soil to an extent...but I really believe it would be beneficial.
There are some wonderful briney habitats on the shore regions of several continents.
In any case I'm betting it would be a great place to hide excess water...

The water would evaporate and fall back into the oceans as rain ... the water cycle ...
 
Yes I'm sure much of it would

I think adding three feet to the sea walls is easier ... cheaper ... but still, now is a good time to start dealing with regulator delays in building nuclear power plants ... so we have time to build them safely ...

There's better reasons to curtail our fossil fuel use ... funding Hamas is just one ...
 
Yes the salt would poison the soil to an extent...but I really believe it would be beneficial.
There are some wonderful briney habitats on the shore regions of several continents.
In any case I'm betting it would be a great place to hide excess water...
An estuary, by definition, is connected to the seas. Putting ocean water there would accomplish nothing except wiping out the flora and fauna of the estuaries which are breeding grounds for large numbers of marine species. The world's estuaries are not running out of water. The threat to them is coastal development. The entire boundary of San Francisco Bay was originally estuarine.
 
An estuary, by definition, is connected to the seas. Putting ocean water there would accomplish nothing except wiping out the flora and fauna of the estuaries which are breeding grounds for large numbers of marine species. The world's estuaries are not running out of water. The threat to them is coastal development. The entire boundary of San Francisco Bay was originally estuarine.
I'm actually talking about dry, sterile desert span. Creating a connection between that and a local ocean even if it's by pipeline would be a very interesting project I think. The deserts are apparently growing why not be proactive in shrinking them?
 
" Is Water Redistribution To Control Climate Change A Viable Option ? "

* Alternatives To Idea Starvation From Dehydration *


Countless dramas are related through the news about wild fires , excessive heat and desertification .

Most of the chatter about controlling wildfires directs to negligence in controlling brush that is likely a significant annual expense .

Though optioning properties facing east so as to take advantage of back yard shade through late morning , recently on occasion my location has been compelled against the sun .

With attire to deflect ultra violet light , a wide brim hat , long sleeve shirt and sometimes glasses , a water hose spraying over my head in an inverted cone moistens my clothes , without drenching them , and cools my body enough to drive on more easily and comfortably for an additional while ( that is true whether the atmosphere is or is not humid ) .

Most having visited a hardware store are likely familiar with air blown over water is applied to cool work areas .

With no filtration required , would it be a reasonable address of concerns for climate change by redistributing water to irrigate and retain organic biomass , or to cool and retain water , in select locations , with an objective of improving climate control over environmental change ?

Increasing the moisture content in vast swaths of geography should likely avoid rapid or deep erosion .




The problem with the fires is really easy to understand.

1. There is no warming.
2. If Earth was warming, which it isn't, it would be WETTER, not DRIER
3. Every human consumes around 25 gallons of fresh water per day
4. Fires in nature are caused by LACK OF WATER not a fraudulent 2F "warming" that does not exist
5. Too many humans consuming the same finite supply of land based fresh water is the problem
6. Co2 Fraud blocks out desalination as a solution because the Co2 FRAUD loves the fires and cites them as evidence Co2 FRAUD is real
 
I'm actually talking about dry, sterile desert span. Creating a connection between that and a local ocean even if it's by pipeline would be a very interesting project I think. The deserts are apparently growing why not be proactive in shrinking them?
I ask you once again, with salt water?
 
How about some basic science, sex ed, logic, statistics, human relationships, ethics, philosophy, the arts?
Hard to fully grasp those if one is falling asleep during the lectures or hung over from alcohol or drugs.
 
.
2. If Earth was warming, which it isn't, it would be WETTER, not DRIER
Have you calculated this by total rainfall globally? Regardless of drought in some regions we are seeing unprecedented rainfall all over the place. And do we know how much rain is falling over the oceans?
 
Hard to fully grasp those if one is falling asleep during the lectures or hung over from alcohol or drugs.
Hard to make proper decisions about government policy if one lacks the education for even a basic understanding of the processes at play.
 
Hard to make proper decisions about government policy if one lacks the education for even a basic understanding of the processes at play.
"Git 'R Done".

Gridlock or sloth isn't a good government policy.
 
Have you calculated this by total rainfall globally? Regardless of drought in some regions we are seeing unprecedented rainfall all over the place. And do we know how much rain is falling over the oceans?

Air holds 7% more water vapor per degree Celsius ... at surface temperatures ... a little less aloft, so call it 5% more rainfall per degree Celsius ...

Where are you seeing unprecedented rainfall? ... Tropical Storms regularly drop 25 inches of rain in a day ... ask anyone caught in a downpour in the Upper Midwest ... you can't see ten feet because of the rain ... these floods the press freaks out over are NOT 100-year events ... not the worst ever seen ...

Folks who use the word "unprecedented" generally don't know what it means ... all weather has happen before ... nothing unprecedented about 36 inches of rain from a Tropical Storm like Harvey ... even in Houston ... which God hates ... Tropical Storm Claudette (1979) dumped 42 inches in just one day ...
 
Air holds 7% more water vapor per degree Celsius ... at surface temperatures ... a little less aloft, so call it 5% more rainfall per degree Celsius ...

Where are you seeing unprecedented rainfall? ... Tropical Storms regularly drop 25 inches of rain in a day ... ask anyone caught in a downpour in the Upper Midwest ... you can't see ten feet because of the rain ... these floods the press freaks out over are NOT 100-year events ... not the worst ever seen ...

Folks who use the word "unprecedented" generally don't know what it means ... all weather has happen before ... nothing unprecedented about 36 inches of rain from a Tropical Storm like Harvey ... even in Houston ... which God hates ... Tropical Storm Claudette (1979) dumped 42 inches in just one day ...
Any rainfall event of 25 inches is unprecedented in the upper midwest.
 
Any rainfall event of 25 inches is unprecedented in the upper midwest.

That was a bit mis-worded ... 25 inches is normal in a Tropical Storm ... the Upper Midwest doesn't get Tropical Storms ...

17 inches in a day in Illinois ... "The Chicago Tribune called the city's [July 18th] 1996 rainstorm the second greatest Illinois natural disaster while noting "the deluge in Aurora was considered a 1-in-1,000-year event." Eight residents died during the torrential rains, and almost half of the homes in Aurora flooded. The one-day storm caused an estimated $600–$700 million in damage." {Cite} ...

The point is ... if it's happened before, then it's not "unprecedented" ... 42 inches in a single day ... see the above citation ...
 
That was a bit mis-worded ... 25 inches is normal in a Tropical Storm ... the Upper Midwest doesn't get Tropical Storms ...
No. 25 inches is NOT normal for a tropical storm or even a full-sledged hurricane or typhoon. It HAS happened, usually from storms that slow or even cease forward motion but it is most assuredly not a "regular" occurrence.
17 inches in a day in Illinois ... "The Chicago Tribune called the city's [July 18th] 1996 rainstorm the second greatest Illinois natural disaster while noting "the deluge in Aurora was considered a 1-in-1,000-year event." Eight residents died during the torrential rains, and almost half of the homes in Aurora flooded. The one-day storm caused an estimated $600–$700 million in damage." {Cite} ...

The point is ... if it's happened before, then it's not "unprecedented" ... 42 inches in a single day ... see the above citation ...
I agree with your definition of unprecedented.
 
Wrong. 25 inches in 24 hours would be almost a 100 year event, from any sort of storm.

"The graphs suggest that the maximum storm total rainfall will be in the 5 to 10 inch range for storms moving between� 6 and 30 knots.� The rainfall maxima for storms moving slower than 6 knots was usually above 15 inches."


You don't think 100 year event are regular? ... in what sense are they irregular? ...

42 inches of rain in a single day is extreme ... but precedented ... stupid ... it happened before moron, so it's precedented ...

"Precedented means having happened or existed in the past. Learn how to use this word in sentences and compare it with unprecedented, its opposite." -- any dictionary ...
 
You don't think 100 year event are regular? ... in what sense are they irregular? ...
You used the word. What did YOU mean by it, since it has no strict definition in meteorology or anywhere else? Personally, I would assume you meant common, unexceptional, routine, unsurprising or within 1 sigma of the mean; none of which are true.
 
Back
Top Bottom