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

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.

Sorry but i have to disagree, deserts are very important places on earth and are rich in life. Biodiversity is key to this planets survival. please check out the following link...

www.unep.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.unep.org...

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.

I still think that this would be to big a project and take years... lets also not forget that land is land because it is above sea level... so digging super channels is fine... but how do you get the water up to the new sea which will be located inland and therefore more than likely above sea level?

Unless of course you dig down below sea level (which would double the effort/resouces involved) but then you would have a sea with massive cliffs all around it and a huge canyon leading out to the ocean... not much use really!

Dont get me wrong, i do think that you have good intensions... and to be fair its a good idea in some respects... I just think that it would be another example of us using this planet as our playground. We cannot make nature bend its will for us... we need to learn to live in harmony with it... Like i said before... i think the money and effort could be better spent elsewhere .

But thats just what i think... i am no expert so maybe you or someone else can prove me wrong

"You have voted undercoverchef for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month."

Replant the cut down rain forests would be a good start. Decrease and eventually eliminate the use of fossil fuels would help also.
Use wind energy, solar energy,,,,, the list goes on.
It won't be quick, but it will actually work. And we have the technology already in place. It just needs improvement.

There are a number of fresh-water lakes that could use replenishing, but the amount of energy it would take to move a sufficient quantity of water to the desired location and remove the salt, would probably do more to accelerate the warming, and be prohibitively expensive in general.



Sort of a no-win situation.

However, it would be handy if coastal cities and towns set up desalination plants, and used those as sources for drinking water and grey water, rather than rely on already strained inland water sources.

I've always wondered why there isn't a bigger push to utilize seawater - there's plenty of it!

Look at California, they suck up enormous amounts of water, damaging ecosystems, investing gobs of money, shortchanging other states (even other countries), and they're right next to the ocean! Plenty of water, right there and ready for the taking, it just needs to be cleaned and 'freshened' so to speak. It's cheaper in the short-term to utilize fresh water, but in the long run we don't have a choice, we have to turn to the ocean.

A large portion (~50%) of the operating costs associated wtih desalination are due to energy requirements. Seems to me though, that when you're working with large quantities of water, it's not so hard to generate electricity, using the water as a motive force.

Desalination plants are also becoming more and more viable as the energy requirements of pumps decrease, and energy recovery technology improves.

Seems to me that this is a two birds with one stone situation, we can remove some water from the oceans to mitigate rising sea levels, while at the same time reducing the strain on our inland freshwater supply.

Something I'd really like to see is a large-scale coastal fish farm combined with a desalination plant. The water moves through stages, accomodating spawning cycles that rely on a combination of brackish/salt/freshwater, while realizing an additional revenue stream to offset the costs of turning salt water to fresh. Meanwhile, fish crap is the bomb, if you're looking for fertilizer.

Seems feasible, but I haven't read any studies on the subject, so it's all conjecture.

I know one thing for sure though, if we put off desalination year after year, decade after decade, we're going to experience a crisis that makes peak oil look like a broken fingernail - peak water. Now that will most certainly suck.

Better to get ahead of the eight-ball while we have the chance. I know every state and municipality is under the budget crunch, but venture capitalists are hungry for opportunities, and if it's economically viable, there's no reason not to pursue desalination. A fish farm is just one idea for realizing additional revenue streams using the desalination infrastructure, another idea might be algae farming (for biofuel).



Any other ideas?

Freezing blocks of mud and water with selected seeds could create a biosphere for the moon. First just water to evaporate and create clouds to cool the daylight area. The moon has its own gravity, the water wouldn't fall back to earth. In time, evaporation would cool the moon and things could grow, creating an atmosphere with oxygen. After a long time it would be a spare "earth" in case of disaster here. A launching pad and space ship could be built at every city and the people that would leave could be selected by lottery. Or we could also build space centers on the moon so the ships could come back to get more people.
This could bring the whole world together working on this one project, no wars, no racism, everyone would work together.
It wasn't the water that moved the earth, it was the quake.
It would take decades, maybe centuries but it would be a project that would bring everyone together with one single goal, to save mankind.

Originally posted by thematrix
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.

www.survas.mdx.ac.uk...

Even a 60 cm rise in sea level for belgium is, according to this report, a problem that will cost a huge amount of money to address.


yosemite.epa.gov...$File/maps.pdf

By page 17 you get to maps showing areas indundated by sea water, with only 5 meteres of sea level rise.

In fact here is apage with a bunch of reports on the impacts of sea level rise
yosemite.epa.gov...


Rember, a 100 foot increase in sea level does NOT mean that the shore is 100 feet inland, it means that the current shoreline is under a column of water 100 feet high.

As another example, this is earth when there are basically no icesheets at the south pole, which of course is not at all realistic for global warming anytime soon, but it shows just how much water there is locked up in ice on land:


North America? Flooded all the way through Canada. Europe? A series of islands, etc.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Nygdan]

Sure, send the water to the moon, so we can all die of dehydration here on earth.

However, it would be handy if coastal cities and towns set up desalination plants, and used those as sources for drinking water and grey water, rather than rely on already strained inland water sources.

Thats not a bad idea

I remember hearing something about this years ago on a TV documetary but remember them saying it could have an adverse effect on the environment... cant remember why.... but, im sure we must have the technology now that could minimise the impact and i like the idea of using hydro power to supply its energy needs

It could definatly help to reduce the impact on our fresh water supplys and could be part of a wider plan.

One of the big threats to fresh water supplys around the world is pollution so i guess if we act to prevent industrys dumping their waste into rivers/lakes ect... plus reduce the amount of fresh water we use... we could really start to see the worlds rivers/lakes get back to healthy levels.

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Ok guys thats fine and dandy many countries outside the US already have lots of Desal plants, as well as a few here in the US also. The drinking water and energy is not whats being addressed here, it is the rise in sea level. Due to natural occurences here on Earth, the water will rise anyways.

I think at least we could guide the water to where it will fill in, like deserts and whatnot. I would rather have the sea fill in mose desert, than usable farmland.

Hellow the Panama canal or the Suez canal were not dug overnight. And how did you not even read what I said about how the water fills itself in? You dig towards the ocean, and gravity does the rest once you connect it.