Go back
Sea level rise

Sea level rise

Science

twhitehead

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
Clock
10 Jul 17

Originally posted by Eladar
We would be moving waters from West of the Continental divide to the Southwest. Compare the volume of wayer flowing into the oceans to the size of the desert. Eaters on the Eastern side of the Rockies could be used to irrigate fields and water livestick and supply water for people. This would also lessen our need to deplete aquifers.

Of course the same id ...[text shortened]... used in other countries around the world. Perhaps we could actually start to refill the Aral Sea
And what source of energy do you propose using to move all that water?

And will you pay for the construction costs and energy costs with your taxes?

twhitehead

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
Clock
10 Jul 17

Originally posted by Eladar
Take the plants and bury them before they decay or let animals eat them and bury the carcass before it decays.
Unless you bury it very deep, it will decay all the same. Fossil fuels form in the deep oceans and in swamps. They do not form in most other places.

Think outside the box. Every little bit helps.
No, delusional thinking usually does not help.

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
Clock
10 Jul 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
And what source of energy do you propose using to move all that water?

And will you pay for the construction costs and energy costs with your taxes?
Why not use cheap renewables?

We are saving the world and you quibble over taxes?

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
Clock
10 Jul 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by twhitehead
Unless you bury it very deep, it will decay all the same. Fossil fuels form in the deep oceans and in swamps. They do not form in most other places.

[b]Think outside the box. Every little bit helps.

No, delusional thinking usually does not help.[/b]
We have plenty of deep abandoned mines where the stuff can be put.

F

Unknown Territories

Joined
05 Dec 05
Moves
20408
Clock
10 Jul 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by humy
no, not specific enough; Apparently you cannot follow the conversation. I responded to;

Originally posted by Eladar
How do you think the carbon made its way [b]underground
to begin with? It was originally plant material.


from the word "underground" above he was CLEARLY talking about fossil fuels and not the more generic "pla ...[text shortened]... rring to in his above comment in such a way as to include the carbon in currently LIVING plants?[/b]
Looks like you got schooled.

Again.

It's really no use talking to you, it seems.
You're dishonest, willing to twist and contort other people's words or data in order to try to make your point instead of simply following the truth regardless of its final destination.
Best of luck.

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
Clock
11 Jul 17
4 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
Why not use cheap renewables?
one day (and perhaps not too far into the future) we would surely have no shortage of cheap renewables but right now we don't have anything like the vast amounts of cheap renewables to use to shift all that water for what you are proposing which would be unlikely to result in any benefit and probably cause an environmental disaster of biblical proportions for the reasons I already explained.

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
Clock
11 Jul 17
7 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
We have plenty of deep abandoned mines where the stuff can be put.
so you think if, with the vast cost required, all the river water and well water was used to water all the dry land of the Earth that people would of course all naturally rush to, and with an astonishing combination of extreme altruism and long-term foresight never seen before amongst humans, spend huge amounts of personal time labor and cost and collectively spend trillions of dollars in the process with no profit in return to grow vast amounts of plant material suitable for carbon burial and then harvest all of it and then transport it all and ram it deep into abandoned mines? Which planet have you been on?

twhitehead

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
Clock
11 Jul 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
Why not use cheap renewables?

We are saving the world and you quibble over taxes?
I'll take that response as an admission that you are just trolling.

twhitehead

Cape Town

Joined
14 Apr 05
Moves
52945
Clock
11 Jul 17
1 edit

Originally posted by Eladar
We have plenty of deep abandoned mines where the stuff can be put.
So, your proposal is to bury millions of tons of plant matter in mines? Not only are you 'thinking outside the box', but your mind has left sanity behind altogether.

Mammy Blue
Delicious Monster...

Joined
17 Sep 10
Moves
74723
Clock
12 Jul 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Is this enough water for you?
http://www.newsweek.com/larsen-c-iceberg-ice-shelf-antarctica-635428

s
Fast and Curious

slatington, pa, usa

Joined
28 Dec 04
Moves
53321
Clock
12 Jul 17

Originally posted by Mammy Blue
Is this enough water for you?
http://www.newsweek.com/larsen-c-iceberg-ice-shelf-antarctica-635428
Let's see. How many BTUs does it take to melt a trillion tons of ice into useable water? So about 144 BTU to melt one pound of ice and that iceberg is about 2 quadrillion pounds so about 288 quadrillion BTU. So burning gasoline gives about 114,000 btu per gallon so if you burned gasoline to melt that iceberg it would take 17 billion gallons of gasoline. Sure. It could happen.....

Mammy Blue
Delicious Monster...

Joined
17 Sep 10
Moves
74723
Clock
13 Jul 17
1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by sonhouse
Let's see. How many BTUs does it take to melt a trillion tons of ice into useable water? So about 144 BTU to melt one pound of ice and that iceberg is about 2 quadrillion pounds so about 288 quadrillion BTU. So burning gasoline gives about 114,000 btu per gallon so if you burned gasoline to melt that iceberg it would take 17 billion gallons of gasoline. Sure. It could happen.....
I recall a Middle East country, maybe Saudi Arabia, contemplated towing an iceberg up the Indian ocean to their country a few years back, and use it to water their deserts and palm groves etc.
Wonder if it happened...

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
Clock
14 Jul 17
1 edit

Originally posted by sonhouse
Let's see. How many BTUs does it take to melt a trillion tons of ice into useable water? So about 144 BTU to melt one pound of ice and that iceberg is about 2 quadrillion pounds so about 288 quadrillion BTU. So burning gasoline gives about 114,000 btu per gallon so if you burned gasoline to melt that iceberg it would take 17 billion gallons of gasoline. Sure. It could happen.....
Exactly! How would anyone melt an iceberg without using gasoline?

Good thing they have lots of oil in the Middle East. No other way to melt ice in the deserts of the region.

h

Joined
06 Mar 12
Moves
642
Clock
14 Jul 17
3 edits
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by Eladar
Exactly! How would anyone melt an iceberg without using gasoline?

Good thing they have lots of oil in the Middle East. No other way to melt ice in the deserts of the region.
If you transported an iceberg to the Middle East then the warmth of the climate would naturally melt that ice to liquid water without burning oil/gasoline to directly heat it to melt it.

E

Joined
12 Jul 08
Moves
13814
Clock
14 Jul 17
Vote Up
Vote Down

Originally posted by humy
If you transported an iceberg to the Middle East then the warmth of the climate would naturally melt that ice to liquid water without burning oil/gasoline to directly heat it to melt it.
I think my last reply went over your head.

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.