Answer:
The correct answer is the third statement.
Explanation:
This is because the first and last statements are completely incorrect as irrigation systems had to do with routing water from streams and lakes, into farms in order to hydrate plants. The second answer is technically correct in my opinion, because once flood season came farmers used irrigation lines to re-route water to reservoirs or other places besides their farms. Although, this was not the main purpose of irrigation systems.
A. Igneous Basalt Rock
Mid-oceanic ridge volcanoes produce basalt. The centers of the continents are composed mainly of coarse-grained, light-colored rocks like granite.
After doing a lot of research and looking at the graph above, I did this on paper and have got the answer for you. However, since I can't draw iny our book myself, I am going to explain where you can draw a line to show the changing length of daylight over the course of one year that occurs for an observer at 50° S latitude.
You will need to have a line that extends from the beginning of January to the end of December. the line needs to be marked anywhere from the graph line 16 that goes downward to line 12, 8, then curves upward towards line 12 and ends at line 16 on the other side of the graph. If you need more help or don't understand, I can try to get you a picture uploaded. It isn't letting me at this time for some reason, I keep getting an error.
The central meridian is the tangent of a projection,the prime meridian is in Greenwich,England
hello there
Andrea's point is probably the answer you're looking for, however, you should keep in mind that many (most?) environmental laws are driven more by politics than by the available data. Scientists do research on any number of topics (environmental or not) that have implications for our society. We (scientists) like to think that policy makers take our data and results into consideration when drafting legislation, but I would say that in my experience this rarely happens. For one, there have rarely been any federal legislators who understand science. Even the few physicians who've gone into politics seem largely to fail to understand very basic tenets of science, or at least they don't often demonstrate it with their political actions. Leaving environmental issues, for example, if politicians took science into account, there would be no discussion in any school district in the country about whether or not evolution should be taught in schools, as there are simply *NO* scientists who are qualified to have an opinion who would suggest it shouldn't. Environmental issues are not really any different.
hope that helped bye
