Could we relocate some of Earths water to stop sea levels rising?

On the subject of Global Warming, it occured to me that if we can't stop the sea levels rising by cutting greenhouse emissions, would it be possible to transport large amounts of the glaciers which are melting to the moon, where they plan on making bases. They will need water there and we need to get rid of some. Its a logical idea but of course the question is how?

The amounts needed to be moved would be immense but im sure with some research and funding it could be done, once it is off the face of earth, all that needs to be done is it tugged towards the moon and let go once it has enough momentum to reach and impact the moon.

I know it sounds a bit far fetched but ive heard of scientists considering altering the orbit of the planet so i think this is just as feasable.

Would it not be simplier to change the state of the water. Freeze it would seem to be the most simple solution as we are closer to the technology to freeze and keep frozen vast volumes of water.

Move to the moon. Why? According to research, there appear to be millions of tons of water on the moon.

We are still using WWII era rocket technology to launch our space craft today and the payloads are still small.

Moving back on topic, we could consider some kind of mag-lev launcher to hurl blocks on ice to the moon. We should building this kind of technology to launch craft into space.

Removing or adding anything from or to a biosphere will most certainly have more adverse effects then good ones.

To fix a problem, fix the root cause, not the symptoms, I thought everyone knew that by now.

Originally posted by thematrix
Removing or adding anything from or to a biosphere will most certainly have more adverse effects then good ones.

If you change the state of water, you are not added or removing anything from the biosphere. Just changing its state. How you chance its state could impact the biosphere.

To fix a problem, fix the root cause, not the symptoms, I thought everyone knew that by now.

Is this a problem that man can fix? (Not sure if we are going off topic)

Imho the problem isn't that bad that we can't survive it, it doesn't even need to have much of an impact on us, even with sealevel raised a 100 feet most landmass on earth will still be land.

We are an adaptable species, its better to limit the damage we do to the planet and let it heal itself, the extinction of the dinosaurs due to a massive metior impact disrupted the earths ballance greatly and just look now, a while later in galactic history, our planet is still here with a massive biodiversity.

The only problem I see is mankinds perspective on things, we only live to be 80-100 years old, so we want to see things happen, changed, fixed, solved, created and yadayada yada in our own lifetimes.

In a few 1000 years, when (if we "stay the course" we are heading now) mankind is only remembered by ruines and hints in landscapes, the earth will still be here and there will be even more biologicals on the planet then there are now.

Surely the heat caused by the friction of launching a block of ice through the atmosphere would cause it to melt long before it hit the moon?

Would it not jus create one massive down pour??

It would be too much to do I think. The amount of water that would need to be transported to the moon would be enormous. The money spent on that type of research and technology would be better spent (and quicker) on finding ways to limit greenhouse emissions to stop the rising sea levels.

We could refill the Aral sea (Wikipedia article) This area is already installing desalination plants, so they could build more of them if it was filled by salt water. This would improve the ecology and economy of the surrounding countries. But I am not sure how much water it would take.

Rocky6, not sure I fully agree on spending all the money on research. I firmly believe we should be developing mag-lev technology to get cargo in to space rather than the current fuel based systems.

Spending money on both projects would seem a logical course. We should do both

Originally posted by Blacksheep
Surely the heat caused by the friction of launching a block of ice through the atmosphere would cause it to melt long before it hit the moon?

Would it not jus create one massive down pour??

A flaw I did not see when I posted. Yes I suppose some water would be lost but depending on the size of the block of ice, it may not matter that much.

What say the rest of you?

I think that move anything in massive quantities off of this planet would eventually alter the Earths orbit. What kind of effect would it have, if any?

Also, it does not prevent further melting. Which means under this plan water would be continuously moved off of the planet??

If the planet is in fact warming as it appears, we will need all the water to stay here. The planet may become encapsulated in an atmosphere of steam, but at least we will not become crispy critters before that time.

Of course, I may be thinking all wrong. We might all be gone before it gets to that point.

I doubt that it would alter the earths orbit or anything like that. Look at the huge amount of water shifted during the asian tsunami. OK it did alter the rotation of the Earth but only a fraction which is almost undetectable.

I dont think the effect on any ecosystem of biosphere would be a big problem.

We could refill the Aral sea (Wikipedia article) This area is already installing desalination plants, so they could build more of them if it was filled by salt water. This would improve the ecology and economy of the surrounding countries. But I am not sure how much water it would take.

This is also another idea but i think this would take longer and would only be a temporary solution. the water will eventually evaporate and end up back where it started.

Shifting water off of the planet ould be a major feat but it would be a permanent solution. The amount of water lost by friction would fall back to earth as snow and ice due to the climate of where it is being taken from, it all depends on the teperature of the ice and the speed at which it leaves the atmosphere. I doubt it would be going fast enough to create much heat energy.

Why not just undertake the creation of massive lakes? For instance, we could just take the largest global initiative in history to dig out a series of empty craters across the Saharra desert, and then start diggin channels towards the sea. BAM, instant fill. Fish have a new place to live, the local ecosystem can grow mangroves, providing safe haven for inverts and juvenile fish so they can grow and become part of a new fishing based populations living aroudn it. What was once desert would then be oasis.

I mean hey lets just get all those destitue looking for jobs in Africa, and hand them a shovel, a whole lot of backhoes, earth movers etc etc. Sounds good to m, and surly all of the glacier that goes through the atmosphere would melt, not just some of it.

If you have tooth pain, you will not just take an aspirin.

The first thing to do is to confirm the reason of your pain and once you know,
act to avoid it going worse...

The pain is a symptom not the cause.

Sea levels rising is a symptom.

We all know the cause by now.

Relocating people or sea walls and dikes would be more feasible than trying to send billions of gallons of sea water into space. We don't have the means or energy to do it with either.

Define the cause of climate change and eliminate the cause...

On the subject of Global Warming, it occured to me that if we can't stop the sea levels rising by cutting greenhouse emissions, would it be possible to transport large amounts of the glaciers which are melting to the moon, where they plan on making bases. They will need water there and we need to get rid of some. Its a logical idea but of course the question is how?

OK... so we remove the ice caps and problem solved right? Wrong!!

What happens to Thermohaline circulation if we remove the ice caps??

Thermohaline circulation is the process that keeps water moving around the ocean. It is what drives the ocean currents. Without the ice caps the process would drastically change (possibly stop)

Plus the ice caps are key to keeping the earth temperature down because they reflect sun light... if you remove them the earth will continue to heat up but at a faster rate.

The ice caps are not just some frozen waste lands that are a nuisance to shipping lanes!!!! They are a key part of this planets engine... We need to be trying to save them, not remove them!


Plus... the effort to remove them would pump vast amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere thus increasing the problem futher. Sorry to be rude but this has to be one the the more ridiculous ideas regarding global warming.

Even shifting the water/ice to another part of our own planet is crazy... do you have any idea how much water is locked up in the ice caps?? The Antarctic ice sheet contains 30 million km³ of ice!!! It would take years to move this, even with all the worlds super tankers working around the clock!!

As many people have already stated we need to fix the cause of climate change not look for quick fixes of the symptoms!

We have been spoiling ourselves with the planets resources for the last hundred years and unless we change this attitude of "the planet is ours to do with as we please" we will be the makers of our own doom!

The solution is simple... instead of investing Billions of dollars/pounds in grandiose schemes of flying ice to the moons using technology that doesnt exist yet, we could invest this money into renewable energy and stop using the fuels that have caused the problem!

There is NO quick fix!


[edit on 28-1-2007 by undercoverchef]

.

LOL, DYeps !

Hope you'll consider making Central Australia the beneficiary of all that unwanted water, instead of allocating all of it to Africa.

Why not just undertake the creation of massive lakes? For instance, we could just take the largest global initiative in history to dig out a series of empty craters across the Saharra desert, and then start diggin channels towards the sea. BAM, instant fill. Fish have a new place to live, the local ecosystem can grow mangroves, providing safe haven for inverts and juvenile fish so they can grow and become part of a new fishing based populations living aroudn it. What was once desert would then be oasis.

I can see some logic in this... but do you realise how large these " craters" would have to be to make even a small dent in current sea levels?? You wouldnt need craters... you would need to make another Sea...

Like i said before " The Antarctic ice sheet contains 30 million km³ of ice"

plus, with mangroves comes swamps wich are breeding grounds for mosquitos. The biggest cause of deaths in Africa is from malaria and i believe this plan would just add to the problem.

While i believe this idea to be more plausible than blasting ice into space... It is still unrealistic... the money and effort taken to achieve it could still be better spent on renewables etc...

[edit on 28-1-2007 by undercoverchef]

Ok perhaps the creation of small seas was a bit unrealistic. Sure I guess mosquitos can be a problem if a swamp were created, but I think we can ALL agree that deserts serve little to no purpose except as bombing ranges and natural borders.

And Australia could very well be a place for that water.

I see it more like this, we built the panama canal. We built the Suez Canal. We built the Panama canal. I do not see why due to climatic threats to the human race, the human race cannot now, with its current technology and resources, build a series of super channels through some of the most inhospitable land on Earth (eg. Sahara, Australia, Southwest US) in the effort to redirect some of the rising sea levels as a result of the melting Ice Caps. By doing so, we may possibly also be creating new environments for which futue populations of humans can relocate to in the event that the rise in sea level becomes so dramatic it would force civilizations to abandon their present coastal cities.

For example, a canal could be dug through the South West US and Sahara. Lets say New Orleans and Venice, Italy finally lose the battle against nature, and the majority of their cities can no longer be kept above water. Well as a result of the rising seas, the small canals we dug have now grown slightly and through the proper environmental management, will house a producive environment enough for a small city to begin developmet along it, or at least a safe distance.

We would not actually have to move any of the water at all. We just start digging from the interior, towards to the sea, whereupon reached the canal will fill itself.

Now what is that you say? Where to do we put the Earth we have just dig? Well glad you asked, because If I am not mistaken there should be enough land in that stuff to create very strong natural levees to protect many of our current coastal cities, as well as along the canals themselves.

Does this sound somewhat realistic? I mean as far as I know its possible. Definetly more sound then launching water into outer space.

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Relocating people or sea walls and dikes would be more feasible than trying to send billions of gallons of sea water into space. We don't have the means or energy to do it with either.

Define the cause of climate change and eliminate the cause...

man cannot stop the sun. you may know something different, but i would think controlling the sun, is still way of.