Topic: Is it possible to restore a river?
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM started this discussion 10 years ago #56,100
Like, is it possible to bring the Mojave River back to life with surface water and allow vegetation to grow in the desert?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 22 minutes later[^] [v] #724,536
Yes, but you might need a river transplant.
Metæ joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 24 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #724,537
Fact: the mojave desert was turned into a desert by climate change.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 27 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #724,538
@previous (Metæ)
Can't you terraform the desert, though? I heard stories about people planting trees in the Sahara Desert which spread on their own to create a mini forest.
Can't you terraform the desert, though? I heard stories about people planting trees in the Sahara Desert which spread on their own to create a mini forest.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 8 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #724,539
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,547
Jubilee Starshine joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 58 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,549
@previous (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
well, yeah, that's true, but there is a difference between naturally occurring climate change and climate change caused by humans. also, the american west is an excellent example of how irrigation can bring the desert to life. places like las vegas wouldn't exist if they didn't impost huge amounts of water. phoenix is another. even lubbock texas wouldn't exist as a large town if it wasn't for city planning that includes capturing of seasonal flood waters into man made damns and irrigating the fuck out of everything.
it's not really terraforming when it's on a small scale like transforming a desert, unless that change occurs due to natural processes. altering the entire environment to naturally support a green sahara would be called terraforming, but you'd be altering the entire planet to alter regions. importing water and trees will just collapse without intervention and maintenance, so it's not really terraforming if it's not self sustaining. and without irrigation las vegas, phoenix, and lubbock would end up swallowed by dunes.
and really all man made global warming is doing is making it drier and hotter in dry and hot areas which puts a further burden on our fresh water supplies, droughts are more frequent and irrigation is just barely maintaining some areas. unfortunately i don't think anyone knows exactly what the full impact of air pollution will be, and it would sure be nice if we could burden our industry to keep the air clean like we make them keep the water clean.
but that's impossible because humans are idiots. optimistically i believe we'll eventually be a space faring species and we'll need to learn to terraform planets. we're trashing earth pretty good, it'll force us to intervene bigly and globally one of these days.
well, yeah, that's true, but there is a difference between naturally occurring climate change and climate change caused by humans. also, the american west is an excellent example of how irrigation can bring the desert to life. places like las vegas wouldn't exist if they didn't impost huge amounts of water. phoenix is another. even lubbock texas wouldn't exist as a large town if it wasn't for city planning that includes capturing of seasonal flood waters into man made damns and irrigating the fuck out of everything.
it's not really terraforming when it's on a small scale like transforming a desert, unless that change occurs due to natural processes. altering the entire environment to naturally support a green sahara would be called terraforming, but you'd be altering the entire planet to alter regions. importing water and trees will just collapse without intervention and maintenance, so it's not really terraforming if it's not self sustaining. and without irrigation las vegas, phoenix, and lubbock would end up swallowed by dunes.
and really all man made global warming is doing is making it drier and hotter in dry and hot areas which puts a further burden on our fresh water supplies, droughts are more frequent and irrigation is just barely maintaining some areas. unfortunately i don't think anyone knows exactly what the full impact of air pollution will be, and it would sure be nice if we could burden our industry to keep the air clean like we make them keep the water clean.
but that's impossible because humans are idiots. optimistically i believe we'll eventually be a space faring species and we'll need to learn to terraform planets. we're trashing earth pretty good, it'll force us to intervene bigly and globally one of these days.
buto joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 hours later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,585
@previous (Jubilee Starshine)
like we make them keep the water clean?? who's we? where is this clean water
like we make them keep the water clean?? who's we? where is this clean water
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 13 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,586
@724,549 (Jubilee Starshine)
If humans had gone extinct a million years ago, the earth's climate would still be changing. Perhaps going cooler instead of warmer but some other ecosystem would be getting fucked up and other species would be going extinct instead.
If humans had gone extinct a million years ago, the earth's climate would still be changing. Perhaps going cooler instead of warmer but some other ecosystem would be getting fucked up and other species would be going extinct instead.
buto replied with this 10 years ago, 14 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,592
@previous (Metæ)
> If humans had gone extinct a million years ago, the earth's climate would still be changing. Perhaps going cooler instead of warmer but some other ecosystem would be getting fucked up and other species would be going extinct instead.
you're fucking retarded meta
> If humans had gone extinct a million years ago, the earth's climate would still be changing. Perhaps going cooler instead of warmer but some other ecosystem would be getting fucked up and other species would be going extinct instead.
you're fucking retarded meta
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 51 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,623
@previous (buto)
He's actually quite right, honestly.
@724,586 (Metæ)
What are the chances the planet may have been entering phases for a new intelligence to evolve which would later fuck up the climate?
He's actually quite right, honestly.
@724,586 (Metæ)
What are the chances the planet may have been entering phases for a new intelligence to evolve which would later fuck up the climate?
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 3 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,624
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 2 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,625
@724,623 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
You're fucking retarded too Cath, your endorsement means less than a lot.
You're fucking retarded too Cath, your endorsement means less than a lot.
Metæ replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,626
@724,623 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
> What are the chances the planet may have been entering phases for a new intelligence to evolve which would later fuck up the climate?
I'm not sure. I don't know enough about biology to understand how humans got to be so intelligent and other species didn't, but I imagine without humans some other species would become intelligent eventually.
> What are the chances the planet may have been entering phases for a new intelligence to evolve which would later fuck up the climate?
I'm not sure. I don't know enough about biology to understand how humans got to be so intelligent and other species didn't, but I imagine without humans some other species would become intelligent eventually.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 13 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,639
@724,625 (F)
Rude, mad.
@previous (Metæ)
Evolution is dependent upon the environment among other natural factors. Which is why you can never accurately predict future evolution.
Rude, mad.
@previous (Metæ)
Evolution is dependent upon the environment among other natural factors. Which is why you can never accurately predict future evolution.
buto replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,641
@724,624 (Metæ)
> So, without humans earth's climate would just stay the same forever?
lol
yeah totally
u ever... you know... actually learn anything about climate change?
> So, without humans earth's climate would just stay the same forever?
lol
yeah totally
u ever... you know... actually learn anything about climate change?
buto double-posted this 10 years ago, 33 seconds later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,642
Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 33 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,680
@OP> Like, is it possible to bring the Mojave River back to life with surface water and allow vegetation to grow in the desert?
Catherine you need to pay close attention to the news. California is in a horrid drought. Not a drop available to waste on deserts. My Green lawns and pots and hanging baskets of Lobelia, need the water they need.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 4 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,683
@previous (Syntax)
Syntax, we still have golf courses and a shitton of man-made lakes ironically situated along the banks of the river. It's not like the deserts are completely without water.
Syntax, we still have golf courses and a shitton of man-made lakes ironically situated along the banks of the river. It's not like the deserts are completely without water.
buto replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,687
buto double-posted this 10 years ago, 17 seconds later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,688
Syntax replied with this 10 years ago, 23 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,708
@724,687 (buto)Why r u replying 2me?
u rant about my bad inglish and urs stinks so its best u just put me on ignore
@724,683 (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
> Syntax, we still have golf courses and a shitton of man-made lakes ironically situated along the banks of the river. It's not like the deserts are completely without water.
If you read what is going on with California - The fight is to keep the largest and most necessary part of Calif economy going.
Quick LookC at situation and You do the Math Please
Agriculture (including fruit, vegetables, dairy, and wine production) is a major California industry. Airborne exports of perishable fruits and vegetables amounted to approximately $579 million in 2007. By way of comparison, California exported more agricultural products by air that year than 23 other states did by all modes of transport.
According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, "California agriculture is a $42.6 billion dollar industry that generates at least $100 billion in related economic activity." The state’s agricultural sales first exceeded $30 billion in 2004, making it more than twice the size of any other state's agriculture industry.
Got that? More than 2X any other USA State Ag Industry - Which means not just generating food and money for Calif - We Feed the rest of the USA with exports to Japan and South Korea in mass amounts of the best of what we grow at premium prices
California is the leading dairy state. Milk is California's number one farm commodity. Exports of almonds continued to be the top commodity from California, with a value of $2.83 billion in foreign sales. Dairy and dairy products ranked second to almonds with a California total export value of $1.42 billion, a 24 percent increase over 2010. California's dairy industry generated $47 billion "in economic activity" in 2004 and employed over 400,000 people."
According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, "California agriculture is a $42.6 billion dollar industry that generates at least $100 billion in related economic activity." The state’s agricultural sales first exceeded $30 billion in 2004, making it more than twice the size of any other state's agriculture industry.
Got that? More than 2X any other USA State Ag Industry - Which means not just generating food and money for Calif - We Feed the rest of the USA with exports to Japan and South Korea in mass amounts of the best of what we grow at premium prices
California is the leading dairy state. Milk is California's number one farm commodity. Exports of almonds continued to be the top commodity from California, with a value of $2.83 billion in foreign sales. Dairy and dairy products ranked second to almonds with a California total export value of $1.42 billion, a 24 percent increase over 2010. California's dairy industry generated $47 billion "in economic activity" in 2004 and employed over 400,000 people."
And there is my Green Lawn and mass of hanging baskets of plants and a huge amount of Basil. Fog in mornings and Lobelia are a match made in heaven - Basil however draws white flies but I have small fans that drive the flies Away and I do have drip pans for when it rains to collect and use water for garden so I have done all I can PLUS I drink Beer n Wine which saves WATER and that Water I use to keep my lawn Green so I am guilt free
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,715
@724,641 (buto)
Well the climate changed over a long period without human interaction. That doesn't mean that human caused climate change isn't happening or that it isn't a bad thing.
Well the climate changed over a long period without human interaction. That doesn't mean that human caused climate change isn't happening or that it isn't a bad thing.
Syntax joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 9 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,721
@previous (kook !!OPZbEQMT1)
> That doesn't mean that human caused climate change
The vast majority of Scientists on Planet Earth do believe its the pollution industry and vehicles produce that are changing the climate. Politically the Right Wing Nuts of the Republican party who also believe life on Planet Earth began per the old testament about 5700 years ago. Dinosaurs of course do not exist because for one none could fit on Noah's ark and Oil does not exist cause it takes millions of years for vegetation to turn in2 oil.
Anyway I remember when Republicans said Cigarettes did not cause Cancer or Heart disease because that wood be bad for business. And pollution of Oceans and Rivers are impossible because they are so large.
Same Republicans cannot stand for anything getting in the way of Economy even if its a matter of Poison.
AND SMOG - Right Wing Nuts are against making smog laws more better cause its bad for economy
> That doesn't mean that human caused climate change
The vast majority of Scientists on Planet Earth do believe its the pollution industry and vehicles produce that are changing the climate. Politically the Right Wing Nuts of the Republican party who also believe life on Planet Earth began per the old testament about 5700 years ago. Dinosaurs of course do not exist because for one none could fit on Noah's ark and Oil does not exist cause it takes millions of years for vegetation to turn in2 oil.
Anyway I remember when Republicans said Cigarettes did not cause Cancer or Heart disease because that wood be bad for business. And pollution of Oceans and Rivers are impossible because they are so large.
Same Republicans cannot stand for anything getting in the way of Economy even if its a matter of Poison.
AND SMOG - Right Wing Nuts are against making smog laws more better cause its bad for economy
(Edited 1 minute later.)
kook !!OPZbEQMT1 replied with this 10 years ago, 6 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,724
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 7 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,727
@724,688 (buto)Gonna post a loose dox. This is technically one of my town's golf courses which is smaller than I thought it was upon look at a satellite view.
buto replied with this 10 years ago, 49 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,762
@previous (Catherine !TGirlYJKXM)
oh. that's not... really a golf course. that looks like mini golf without the fun stuff. and the grass isn't green. that doesn't make me feel bad
@724,708 (Syntax)
...no
I am like confused and aggravated that you insist on writing like a demented ass weirdo when you're perfectly capable of making a legible post
oh. that's not... really a golf course. that looks like mini golf without the fun stuff. and the grass isn't green. that doesn't make me feel bad
@724,708 (Syntax)
...no
I am like confused and aggravated that you insist on writing like a demented ass weirdo when you're perfectly capable of making a legible post
Jubilee Starshine replied with this 10 years ago, 2 hours later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,861
@724,624 (Metæ)
no one is saying that the earth's climate doesn't change, dude. what climate scientists are saying is that pollution is causing a specific impact, an acceleration of the rate of change and can demonstrate how the cause of this acceleration is air pollution. no one is saying that climate doesn't change without human intervention. so let's just go ahead and stop with that ridiculous defense right now, because it makes you seem foolish to have so misunderstood what climatologists are even saying if that's what you think is being said.
no one is saying that the earth's climate doesn't change, dude. what climate scientists are saying is that pollution is causing a specific impact, an acceleration of the rate of change and can demonstrate how the cause of this acceleration is air pollution. no one is saying that climate doesn't change without human intervention. so let's just go ahead and stop with that ridiculous defense right now, because it makes you seem foolish to have so misunderstood what climatologists are even saying if that's what you think is being said.
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,877
Jubilee Starshine replied with this 10 years ago, 39 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,891
@previous (J)
well, i mean it obviously does, he's a smart guy. but everything is politicized these days and there's a fuck load of propaganda and for some reason scientists and intellectuals have been made out to be part of a corrupt system that's deceiving everyone for personal or political gain. everything is getting fucked up my new media and hyper-politics.
i'm sick of it, because science isn't guess work, it's extremely methodical, self skeptical, and most importantly evidence based. it's also complicated and difficult to understand which makes it super easy to misconstrue.
and it's really easy to say, "well, scientists thought the world was flat 800 years ago, so, they don't know everything," and have everyone arguing over strawmen than how to stop air pollution.
cause that's all we need to do, and that's all they're talking about doing. just stop with the air pollution. like how old leather tanning factories back in the day had to stop dumping mercury into the rivers. instead they were forced to filter it out - at their own expense - and dump it in an environmentally friendly way.
we're talking about really just making coal burning power plants filter and sequester carbon - a not free, but also not impossible feat - and doing the same for dirty industry. that alone would reduce carbon emmissions in the US by 60%. transportation would be the next thing to convert.
investments in infrastructure such as the building of very large solar arrays, carbon sequestration technologies, modernizing our electric grid, and pushing regulations towards electric cars would not only begin to reduce pollution immediately, but would also invigorate the economy with massive building projects and high skilled workers will be needed to service and build electric cars. that means more jobs, higher paying jobs, jobs in education, engineering, architecture... i mean it would be like building the first international highways or the railroads. and it's shit we NEED to do just to stay competitive in the future. so fighting it is really fucking stupid. we need to be pushing for these changes, and not just to prevent environmental disaster.
well, i mean it obviously does, he's a smart guy. but everything is politicized these days and there's a fuck load of propaganda and for some reason scientists and intellectuals have been made out to be part of a corrupt system that's deceiving everyone for personal or political gain. everything is getting fucked up my new media and hyper-politics.
i'm sick of it, because science isn't guess work, it's extremely methodical, self skeptical, and most importantly evidence based. it's also complicated and difficult to understand which makes it super easy to misconstrue.
and it's really easy to say, "well, scientists thought the world was flat 800 years ago, so, they don't know everything," and have everyone arguing over strawmen than how to stop air pollution.
cause that's all we need to do, and that's all they're talking about doing. just stop with the air pollution. like how old leather tanning factories back in the day had to stop dumping mercury into the rivers. instead they were forced to filter it out - at their own expense - and dump it in an environmentally friendly way.
we're talking about really just making coal burning power plants filter and sequester carbon - a not free, but also not impossible feat - and doing the same for dirty industry. that alone would reduce carbon emmissions in the US by 60%. transportation would be the next thing to convert.
investments in infrastructure such as the building of very large solar arrays, carbon sequestration technologies, modernizing our electric grid, and pushing regulations towards electric cars would not only begin to reduce pollution immediately, but would also invigorate the economy with massive building projects and high skilled workers will be needed to service and build electric cars. that means more jobs, higher paying jobs, jobs in education, engineering, architecture... i mean it would be like building the first international highways or the railroads. and it's shit we NEED to do just to stay competitive in the future. so fighting it is really fucking stupid. we need to be pushing for these changes, and not just to prevent environmental disaster.
beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 5 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,893
Jubilee Starshine replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,896
@previous (beckyderp !Hi.HILLARY)idk, like 42%?
i was about to roll up a joint, but i need a cigarette first. hey, did you hear what trump said about grabbing women by the pussy? that got me hot as fuck, let me tell you. he can grab my coochie any day.
Catherine !TGirlYJKXM (OP) replied with this 10 years ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #724,925
Jubilee Starshine replied with this 10 years ago, 26 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #724,935
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 10 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #724,938
@previous (Jubilee Starshine)
> i'm a fabulous bitch, don't you forget it
your sexy and you know it !!
> i'm a fabulous bitch, don't you forget it
your sexy and you know it !!