from sea levels to well hydrated trees
| from sea levels to well hydrated trees23-02-2019 01:42 | |
| RichardP☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
Forest fires are common now in the summer, USA had them last summer, Australia, & New Zealand had them recently Just to name three. With sea level rising why not take the two and add some "Thinking inside the square" Take sea water, lightly filter the water and pump it up to these forest and parks whereas the trees would normally dry out and become dehydrated and catch fire at the slightest flash of the smallest spark, The water to keep the grounds & trees well hydrated during any hot summer. If only used once it would be a waste of time thinking about it, but if lots of countries added it to lots of their forest & trees areas, who knows it might soak up rising sea levels. The by-product or spin off would be,Trees for paper, trees for wood, or just something else to grow for food. Then pumps could be run off solar power, We just need to keep thinking inside the square to make two negatives into maybe two positives. |
| 23-02-2019 03:14 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21582) |
RichardP wrote: Salt water kills trees. You'll have more forest fires than ever. You also don't seem to realize just how much water you have to pump. Solar power won't provide it. It's not enough. You can distill the water to produce fresh water, but that requires power to do so. There's an easier way: Water naturally evaporates from the oceans, losing their salt, and form clouds, which move inland, then rain freshwater on the forests. Enough rain falls to create environments favorable for these forests to exist in the first place. Done. Save yourself some work. Let nature do it's job. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 23-02-2019 04:11 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5196) |
Most of the forest fires start with the underbrush, which is season growth, like grasses, that die off, dry out, every year. More water, more underbrush, more fuel for the fires. It's not that forest fires are more common, they are just less convenient. They are actually natural, and a good thing for the forest, occasionally. Clears the ground for new growth, and sends tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, which is viral to plant growth. Plants are the base food for the planet, all other life depends on plants for food, one way or another. Adding more water isn't always a good thing. Some plants store water, too much they bloat and rot. Consider what happened this year in California... They started getting that much need rain, which helped put out the wildfires. Unfortunately, it also cause landslides, mudslides, and flooding. They main problem, is land management, and preventive measure that cost a lot of money every year. People living in those areas prone to wildfires, don't like paying for it, don't like the smoke from prescribed burns (to remove the dried underbrush). They don't like leaving bare, wide open spaces (fire breaks). Basically, when they do they prescribed work, people hate the smoke, and paying for it, get complacent, because wildfires aren't such a big problem anymore. They figure since they fixed the problem, no need to keep paying for it. Few years later, there is a build up of dry underbrush, and dry weather conditions, and a spark... If they want to live there, they need to do the preventative work, every year. Flooding works the same way, it can be managed, but the work needs to be done every year, only takes a few years of neglect. Our local governments, well government in general, have to get their priority straight. Either pay a little every year in prevention, or pay a lot in cleanup and damage control (placate the victims and survivors). |
| 23-02-2019 04:15 | |
| Tai Hai Chen★★★★☆ (1085) |
I bet some environmental activists deliberately set fire to the forests. You don't think so? Don't forget who burned down the Reichstag. Marxists did.
Edited on 23-02-2019 04:16 |
| 23-02-2019 05:18 | |
| RichardP☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
WHAT A SAID: Take sea water, lightly filter the water WHAT I MEAN: it is not needed to be filtered to drinking quality! [the rest has been self moderated] BYE the way I sorry I put it in the wrong place, |
| 23-02-2019 05:45 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196) |
RichardP wrote: Filtering only removes particles, not the dissolved salts and minerals. Plants and trees can tolerate some sea water, but the salts and minerals would build up in the soil over time. Instead of sea water, why not just move storm water? We've always diverted storm water out to sea. We do make use of ponds an reservoirs, but any surplus is sent down river, and into the oceans, cheap/natural/easy. Pipelines are expensive though, and it wouldn't be cheap to build them, to move water from flood prone areas, to drought areas. Oil pipelines get built, because there is huge profits, and greedy politicians. A lot of opposition to them over land use, environmental concerns. Moving water wouldn't be consider very profitable, least not in the sense of paying for construction, or even operation. Besides, it'll rain eventually... |
Join the debate from sea levels to well hydrated trees:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Lake Mead Water Levels Stage A Comeback? | 4 | 31-05-2023 23:03 |
| FASTER GLACIER MELTING MECHANISM COULD CAUSE HUGE SEA LEVEL RISES | 4 | 20-05-2023 19:54 |
| TRANSISTORS THAT GROW ON TREES | 119 | 18-05-2023 00:43 |
| Rip current in the Caspian Sea | 0 | 24-08-2022 11:59 |
| Satellite Measurements-- Sea Level Rise | 71 | 24-08-2022 01:36 |