i'm not familiar with the particular system used in hawaii but at a guess, i'd say what they're watering with is the condensation from the outside of the copper pipes, not the seawater on the inside.

it would be nice if you could freshen water just by running it through copper. but you can't.

and the reason desalinization plants aren't common is because they require huge amounts of energy. in california, it's cheaper to import water from hundreds of miles away then desalinate the ocean next door. as soon as desalinization makes economic sense, it'll happen. the technology isn't new.

Perhaps I wasnt clear , no they are not watering with the water on the inside of the pipes , but it is very cold sea water that is running through the pipes and when condensation happens it makes the water fresh.
Heres a link to their site , Im sure the people at the lab can explain how they are turning sea water into fresh water better than I can.


http://www.nelha.org/

Part of this project is using cold seawater (running through pipes, water obtained a few miles offshore) to cool commercial office buildings on the Islands. Pretty neat.

Let's put the UN-IPCC data to an analysis. The atmosphere currently contains 0.038% or 380 parts per million (ppm) CO2. Each year, humans put about 3% of the CO2 into the atmosphere while 97% comes from natural sources such as the oceans and decaying plant matter. Assuming direct proportionality, that makes all mankind responsible for 380 ppm x 0.03 = 11.4 ppm CO2 concentration. The US generates about 20% of the world's human-made CO2. That makes Americans responsible for 11.4 ppm x 0.2 = 2.28 ppm of the total CO2 concentration.

Which of you US citizens want to pay taxes (maybe up to 10% of your gross income) in response to cap&trade legislation and then donate that money to other nations thru the UN when all we can influence is a lousy 2 ppm of the total 380 ppm CO2 concentration? Does anyone believe that reducing the CO2 count to 378 ppm from 380 ppm by Americans ceasing the use of all carbon based fuels will make any difference at all to global warming? Not me! This seems too simple. How am I missing the boat as to how a tiny portion of a trace gas added my man to the Earth's atmosphere can cause global catastrophe?

The most important part of this post is that humans have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 2.91% over normal.

And the +/- margin of error of the earth's management of excess CO2 appears not to be able to handle that increase.

So I don't see where humans have a choice in doing something.

Yes, the "how" matters. But I sure don't see why we in the USA should ignore our US contribution even though it's smaller than other countries.

Technical point, the oceans absorb CO2 from the atmosphere (which is why the oceans are becoming more acidic, and coral reefs are dying as a result, the excess CO2 the oceans are trying to absorb from our increase in the gas)

Hard to believe, isn't it? It is easy to see how we ruin the air quality of a particular city, and of specific streams, and of the ocean close to shore. It's right there and we can see and touch it and breath it and cough and choke.

But multiply that by the population growth and spread of industrial growth of the earth, and there you go - we are now influencing the environment of the entire planet.

You are not missing the boat.

I think you have been watching re-runs of Inconvenient Truth on the Green Channel too often. Don't even start with "Population Re-Distribution". We do have lot's of room here in the good ole U.S.A., though. ACORN will get them "situated". All we have to do is start putting people back to work and a lot of health-care issues will resolve themselves. This administration wants to keep as many people un-employed for as long as they can to scare up support for their agenda. Wake up!

Oh...and they need a second term to finish their work here!:rolleyes:

No, I think it's those pesky degrees in Biology and Chemistry contributing to my viewpoint.