3 ms·
The article is really about the effect of evapotranspiration. It's more of a look into a hidden effect of our attempts to remove and control larger amounts of
by crusso 11y ago
The article is really about the effect of evapotranspiration. It's more of a look into a hidden effect of our attempts to remove and control larger amounts of fresh water. It isn't really a discussion of general policy.
- abandonliberty 11y agoI was curious how much of the evaporation we'd get back as freshwater. About 20% assuming its evenly spread over the world. 1.1 x 10^14 cu m of water falls on land per year. [0] 5 x 10^14 cu m falls yearly on the earth [1] 80,000 cubic meters is said to be lost to this effect [2]. [0]http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/14/are-we-running-out-of-water/ http://voices.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/14/are-we-runni... [1]http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2008/VernonWu.shtml http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2008/VernonWu.shtml [2]http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/80000-cubic-metres-water-dams-lost-evaporation-during-hot-spell%E2%80%99 http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/80000-cubic-metres-wat...
- schiffern 11y agoI have to wonder if this result is due to increased evaporation (from the dam surface) or increased transpiration (from non-irrigated and irrigated fields). With oxygen isotope analysis the two can be distinguished. This type of analysis reveals that trees are responsible for about 80% of all terrestrial rainfall.[1] In contrast to man-made desalination facilities, this water falls freely as rain instead of being owned and controlled. Global deforestation/desertification is perversely convenient for those interests vying to control water, since in a very real way it eliminates the competition. [1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/abs/nature11983.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7445/abs/nature11...