5 ms·

You can't destroy water, but you can most definitely destroy fresh water. Or else you could have the same argument for just about anything ("I didn't really bre

by tomp 11y ago

You can't destroy water, but you can most definitely destroy fresh water. Or else you could have the same argument for just about anything ("I didn't really break your cup, all the pieces are still lying on the floor.")

shanehoban 11y ago
What if I heated the earths atmosphere and then boiled all the earths water. What would you drink then? I'd drink soda.
- eveningcoffee 11y ago
  This is especially funny as outside of US, this means baking soda (Sodium bicarbonate). In powder form.
  - shanehoban 11y ago
    I'm from outside the US, it was just a joke :S
    - eveningcoffee 11y ago
      Yes, I can confirm, it was a joke. :) Full disclosure: I am from EU.
lisivka 11y ago
Our planet is getting hot, so we will have lot of vapor -> rains -> fresh water. Just collect it instead of dumping it into river or ocean.
- tomp 11y ago
  I'm not so sure about this. Water -> vapor -> water loop only works if there's a temperature gradient - you need heat to vaporize water and coldness to condense vapor into water again. If the whole planet is getting hotter, the atmosphere could simply get more humid, with no more rain/fresh water.
  - lisivka 11y ago
    We have such temperature gradient every night. We have lack of rains in some areas because they are too hot at evening, because of deforestation, but this is an another story. We also can create temperature gradient by adding shade at some areas, e.g. using SO2 at altitude of about 20km.
XorNot 11y ago
The problem is absolute quantities mean nothing: water is a resource which depends on production capacity. So long as it is in sustainable excess there are no problems.
- VLM 11y ago
  This is an interesting issue for young people today. I'm too old, but young people will have "fun" dealing with land west of the Mississippi being in a massive overpopulation bubble, and folks east of the Mississippi having more water than we know what to do with now, and with climate change we're supposed to have even more water leading to some interesting infrastructure problems. For a bit less than 50 years I've heard continuous and constant boosterism that the burbs will migrate back into the city center. No really, this time we're serious about it, etc. Its a cliche now. However a much more interesting migration, is over the next generation or two, most of the west half of the USA will have to migrate back to the east half, assuming they want to drink water or grow plants. Its going to be interesting to watch, at least for today's younger kids to watch. Note that the land will support some people. In 2030 the west is not going to be empty, any more than it was empty in 1830. It just won't have as many people as now.
  - erikpukinskis 11y ago
    I doubt it. Several factors spring to mind that will prevent that specific mass migration: 1) The use of a (small) part of the west's capital to pipe water in from further away 2) Opportunities for multiple orders of magnitude better conservation. 3) Desalination None of those are as easy as "just wait for rain" but as long as it's cheaper than the entire state of California ($10 trillion?) then it's not a financial hardship compared to "everyone just leave."
mrweasel 11y ago
>You can't destroy water Sure you can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting

by tomp 11y ago

shanehoban 11y ago

What if I heated the earths atmosphere and then boiled all the earths water. What would you drink then? I'd drink soda.

eveningcoffee 11y ago
This is especially funny as outside of US, this means baking soda (Sodium bicarbonate). In powder form.
- shanehoban 11y ago
  I'm from outside the US, it was just a joke :S
  - eveningcoffee 11y ago
    Yes, I can confirm, it was a joke. :) Full disclosure: I am from EU.

lisivka 11y ago

Our planet is getting hot, so we will have lot of vapor -> rains -> fresh water. Just collect it instead of dumping it into river or ocean.

tomp 11y ago
I'm not so sure about this. Water -> vapor -> water loop only works if there's a temperature gradient - you need heat to vaporize water and coldness to condense vapor into water again. If the whole planet is getting hotter, the atmosphere could simply get more humid, with no more rain/fresh water.
- lisivka 11y ago
  We have such temperature gradient every night. We have lack of rains in some areas because they are too hot at evening, because of deforestation, but this is an another story. We also can create temperature gradient by adding shade at some areas, e.g. using SO2 at altitude of about 20km.

XorNot 11y ago

The problem is absolute quantities mean nothing: water is a resource which depends on production capacity. So long as it is in sustainable excess there are no problems.

VLM 11y ago
This is an interesting issue for young people today. I'm too old, but young people will have "fun" dealing with land west of the Mississippi being in a massive overpopulation bubble, and folks east of the Mississippi having more water than we know what to do with now, and with climate change we're supposed to have even more water leading to some interesting infrastructure problems. For a bit less than 50 years I've heard continuous and constant boosterism that the burbs will migrate back into the city center. No really, this time we're serious about it, etc. Its a cliche now. However a much more interesting migration, is over the next generation or two, most of the west half of the USA will have to migrate back to the east half, assuming they want to drink water or grow plants. Its going to be interesting to watch, at least for today's younger kids to watch. Note that the land will support some people. In 2030 the west is not going to be empty, any more than it was empty in 1830. It just won't have as many people as now.
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  I doubt it. Several factors spring to mind that will prevent that specific mass migration: 1) The use of a (small) part of the west's capital to pipe water in from further away 2) Opportunities for multiple orders of magnitude better conservation. 3) Desalination None of those are as easy as "just wait for rain" but as long as it's cheaper than the entire state of California ($10 trillion?) then it's not a financial hardship compared to "everyone just leave."

mrweasel 11y ago

>You can't destroy water Sure you can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_splitting