Global Warming is Stuck in the Ice

[Silurian]

Find a way to reduce pollution and move away from low coastlines. Maybe a sunscreen in space

I'd be looking for ways to sequester water, some of the hot barren landscapes would benefit from a nearby body of water. I understand the Red Sea is geologically close to feeding the East African rift.

Better to turn kansas into a 297m deep lake. Far more room for water

Posted by Silurian

The trouble is you are going to need a large area.

The USA produces about 18% of the CO2.

If the oceans of the world were to rise by 1m and 18% of that were stored in the USA the whole country would have to be covered to an average depth of 6m. Alternatively Kansas could be surrounded in one massive dam and flooded to an average depth of 285m.

It will be cheaper to raise the sea walls by 1m around cities and other valuable areas and retreat from others.

 

[bhsup]

Plus a far better use for Kansas.

 

[Silurian]

The trouble is bhsup you would get more snow.

But fish would be cheap.

 

[Snorrius]

There will certainly be some winners. The real question is whether its fair to force the changes on the losers. No one would complain if areas in Russia just became more balmy, "good for them" we'd say and keep on driving. The problem is that the changes are going to be both good and bad, and it's a not clear if it's permissible to foist bad changes on others just for your own benefit.

Well, in politics it is permissible. It is not as this global warming campaign supported entirely because of striving to common good (although it is usually presented as such to public). All sides have their pragmatical priorities first.

But real problem is unfeasibility to stop carbon emissions. A moderate effort can be made but I doubt it is enough.

At the other it seems that we might already passed the peak oil or near to it. If this is the case we will have to cut carbon emissions in natural way. In any case we just should relax .

 

[Berzerker]

Better to turn kansas into a 297m deep lake. Far more room for water

Wont work, Kansas is on a slope - you'd have to flood most of the eastern USA. Besides, flooding farmland aint better than helping the Red Sea invade one of the hottest hellholes on the planet. But hey, if Kansas was our only option I'd move.

Plus a far better use for Kansas.

Than food production?

 

[timtofly]

Most man made seas are excavated.

 

[Algeroth]

EDIT:
Since I know you guys are complete sticks in the mud and will glorify the "paper or it's not true" nature of climate science, some papers:
- Highlighting one major issue with dendro-based climate reconstructions: http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/9/4499/2013/cpd-9-4499-2013.html
- Keith Briffa (CRU, back-pedaling climate alarmist) returns the MWP and slams Mann's work: http://hol.sagepub.com/content/23/3/364
- Biological influences cascade statistical uncertainty into the realms of incalculable: http://www.academia.edu/1906327/Uncertainty_emergence_and_statistics_in_dendrochronology

It might also surprise you to find out Mann has no education in dendroclimatology/dendrochronology and that most scientists in that field actively slam Mann for his poor methodology and statistics. Though I'm sure that would fall on deaf ears, since that only comes out in blogs and dendro email listservs.

None of the paper (Ok, the frist and the third, I don't have an access to the second.) suggest that dendochronology is wrong, they just improve the methodics. You know, the basic scientific method working and all the jazz.

If the Guardian, US Navy, and Department of Energy aren't reputable enough for you, then no source is.

Guardian has decent scientific articles, but when it comes to enviromentalism, they are one of the papers that let Monbiot to reign free.

Cherry picker. You could also claim that you're "going up the down escalator".

Don't know that this deserve to point out as I consider it common knowledge, but do you know that southern hemisphere didn't have all these nice warm periods, right?

Pray, tell: what exactly is wrong with a little alarmism? Climate Change is alarming, and whether it means no arctic sea ice in 2016 or 2030, we must start to do something about it now.

Tell me more...

No because you see cheezy we're humans and we can survive simple stuff like the climate changing and parts of the planet being flooded and potentially thousands (if not millions) of people dying or being made homeless and having to become refugees, and entire countries being flooded and destroyed.

Nah, you are confusing AGW with XCOM.

 

[Dale]

None of the paper (Ok, the frist and the third, I don't have an access to the second.) suggest that dendochronology is wrong, they just improve the methodics. You know, the basic scientific method working and all the jazz.

Didn't say it was wrong, just inaccurate.

Don't know that this deserve to point out as I consider it common knowledge, but do you know that southern hemisphere didn't have all these nice warm periods, right?

*sigh* This old myth again? You do know that has been debunked now by over 1,000 papers? The timing for the south may have been offset (air and sea currents) and the size might have been smaller (more oceans in the south which tend to regulate temperature better), but it definitely had the same warm periods.

 

[classical_hero]

Pray, tell: what exactly is wrong with a little alarmism? Climate Change is alarming, and whether it means no arctic sea ice in 2016 or 2030, we must start to do something about it now.

How are we going to stop the climate from changing? So far we are spending billions upon billions to limit the damage and ye they are doing nothing to limit the climate from changing. Also, why do you ignore the positive effects from a warmer planet?

 

[Silurian]

Wont work, Kansas is on a slope - you'd have to flood most of the eastern USA. Besides, flooding farmland aint better than helping the Red Sea invade one of the hottest hellholes on the planet. But hey, if Kansas was our only option I'd move.

Yes you would have to have some dams running north south to stop the water running down hill. These dams would also be used for road access to fishing villages.

The people creating the pollution should deal with it rather than free loading. The US could pay some other country to store the results of US pollution if they wished. But a small area off the Red Sea will not be able to hold a significant share of the increase in sea water that the US could produce. In other threads you have suggested flooding the Dead Sea but unfortunately this will not hold the water that could result from Israel, Jordan and Syria.

Than food production?

Fish make good food.

Turning Kansas into Lake Kansas would allow increased irrigation of the surrounding states. There would also be increased rain fall.

The farmland in Kansas was worth $2100 per acre in 2013 against the US average of $4000. It is better to flood lower value farm land than higher value farm land.

 

[strijder20]

Wont work, Kansas is on a slope - you'd have to flood most of the eastern USA. Besides, flooding farmland aint better than helping the Red Sea invade one of the hottest hellholes on the planet. But hey, if Kansas was our only option

Solution: dump all the Kansans on the lower level of the slope to level Kansas, then flood the area

 

[Hygro]

Quite honestly, bhsup, I hope you do that with everything I say. I'd hate to think I'm chiming to a bunch of lemmings.

this is a great quote.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How are we going to stop the climate from changing? So far we are spending billions upon billions to limit the damage and ye they are doing nothing to limit the climate from changing.

Our efforts are laughable and practically nonexistent. We need to stop deforestation, stop the burning of fossil fuels, stop the venting of heavy metals by industry which our planet can never destroy and which cause the greenhouse effect. Every effort must be made to effect these changes as soon as is possible. Not as soon as is convenient, not as soon as is profitable. Now. It requires planning at all levels, from local to global, and capitalism cannot make it happen.

Unfortunately, there are some things which we cannot cure. The planet will naturally take care of carbon dioxide, but chemicals like tetrafluoromethane (a refrigerant) and Hexafluoroethane and Nitrogen Trifluoride, which come from electronics and semiconductors will remain in the atmosphere for up to 50,000 years. This is all the more reason why we have to address both problems now: we will have to act on carbon all the faster and more thoroughly, since these other chemicals we can do nothing about, and thus must also stop from polluting immediately.

Also, why do you ignore the positive effects from a warmer planet?

I don't care about the minute positive effects of a warmer planet, I care about the catastrophic negative effects. For example, I like my shoreline where it is, and I like my sensitive species not being extinct. I like my weather the way it is, and I like not having super-storms and more chaotic weather patterns. I like my crops where they are presently viable, and I like my deserts to remain where they are.

The fact that a northwest passage might open up and you can spend the winter on the beach in Canada doesn't really make up for that, not by a long shot.

 

[Berzerker]

Most man made seas are excavated.

They're not meant to reduce sea levels.

Yes you would have to have some dams running north south to stop the water running down hill. These dams would also be used for road access to fishing villages.

The dam around the eastern end would have to be more than a half mile high.

The people creating the pollution should deal with it rather than free loading. The US could pay some other country to store the results of US pollution if they wished. But a small area off the Red Sea will not be able to hold a significant share of the increase in sea water that the US could produce. In other threads you have suggested flooding the Dead Sea but unfortunately this will not hold the water that could result from Israel, Jordan and Syria.

How about an internet tax to help people displaced by rising seas? The rift is not a small area, and the Dead Sea is already holding water for that region - and its shrinking.

Fish make good food.

Not as renewable, we're already over fishing seas.

Turning Kansas into Lake Kansas would allow increased irrigation of the surrounding states. There would also be increased rain fall.

Thats why doing this in deserts is smarter than flooding arable lands, but you cant turn Kansas into a lake or a poorly thought out troll into a gem of wisdom.

The farmland in Kansas was worth $2100 per acre in 2013 against the US average of $4000. It is better to flood lower value farm land than higher value farm land.

Link? I didn't suggest we flood quality farmland, why do you? How much good farmland in the Danakil and Afar Depressions? E Kansas has the most valuable farmland in the state and thats where the water would be if you surrounded the state with a dam tall enough to hold all the water.

Solution: dump all the Kansans on the lower level of the slope to level Kansas, then flood the area

How does shifting weight from higher to lower elevations level land?

 

[timtofly]

You told us that building a dam would work, and strijder20 said that Kansans would make good dam material. You really do not need a dam. You just need to excavate out a sea. Where else would you get the material for your dam any way? Excavating properly would make it deep enough and work as a dam as well.

 

[Silurian]

They're not meant to reduce sea levels.

But they could be.

The dam around the eastern end would have to be more than a half mile high

.

Not quite 800m tall.

As I noted above there would have to be some north south dams. The number of north south dams would depend relative cost of length verses height.

The tallest earth fill dam in the world is 300m high and was started in 1961 in the former USSR. If the USA is not capable of building dams 400 or 500m high I would be surprised.

From Wiki

The Nurek Dam (Tajik: Нерӯгоҳи обии Норак, Nerūgohi obii Norak, Tajiki for Nurek Hydro-electric Station) is an earth fill embankment dam on the Vakhsh River in the central Asian nation of Tajikistan. Construction of the dam began in 1961 and was completed in 1980, when Tajikistan was still a republic within the Soviet Union. At 300 m (984 ft) it is currently the second tallest man-made dam in the world. The Rogun Dam, also along the Vakhsh in Tajikistan, may exceed it in size when completed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurek_Dam

How about an internet tax to help people displaced by rising seas?

The US could impose a tax on its population to pay for the displaced people in Bangladesh, Maldives etc. Obviously it would be cheaper to use the tax that you propose to stop the seas rising in the first place.

The rift is not a small area, and the Dead Sea is already holding water for that region - and its shrinking.

The rift is very long and narrow hence the name. Almost all of it is above sea level so storing water there would also involve massive dam construction just like a US storage site. Obviously there would be problems building dams across the rift. The GDP growth in Africa is higher than the US and Europe so it is likely that the countries along the rift valley would want to use it for there own water storage site if the construction problems could be overcome..

How can the Dead Sea be holding water for the region when it is shrinking. Where do you think the water is coming from that is greening the desert. Where do you think that water goes when it evaporates.

Not as renewable, we're already over fishing seas.

We are also over farming the land. Lake Kansas would take pressure off the US coastal fisheries.

Tourism would also benefit with beaches, sailing, water skiing and diving to see flooded cities such as Topeka.

Thats why doing this in deserts is smarter than flooding arable lands, but you cant turn Kansas into a lake or a poorly thought out troll into a gem of wisdom.

So which US state do you propose to flood rather than Kansas.

Link? I didn't suggest we flood quality farmland, why do you? How much good farmland in the Danakil and Afar Depressions? E Kansas has the most valuable farmland in the state and thats where the water would be if you surrounded the state with a dam tall enough to hold all the water.

A link for you.

http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Land_Values/crop_value_map.asp

Whilst Kansas does not have the cheapest farm land it is far from the most expensive.

Obviously if inaction has produced the need to store water on land the lake would have to be filled as fast as possible. Kansas has the Missouri River which could be dammed and the water diverted into Lake Kansas. A hydro electric power station on the dam could be used to pump the water into Lake Kansas. This power station along with others on outlets from lake Kansas would form a major source of power to Nebraska and Missouri when lake Kansas was full.

Is there another US state that could so easily have a major rivers water diverted into it to quickly form a lake but is also relatively flat.


Danakil and Afar Depressions are volcanically active so are not the best place for dam construction.
If flooded to sea level the Danaki it would only be around 100m deep. It is also smaller in area than Lake Kansas would be. So would hold far less water than Kansas flooded to an average depth of 297m

http://www.nelsonelson.com/ethio-eritrean-danakil-canal-and-harbor/

The lake Kansas dam would most likely be build a few miles west of the Missouri. This land could become part of the state of Missouri.

 

[Silurian]

The Danaki depression has an area of about 10000km. So flooding it to sea level, 100m, would take 1000 km3 of water.

Assume 200,000km2 of Kansas could be flooded. (the other 13000km would be covered by the dams, strip next Missouri, hill tops etc.). So If Lake Kansas was 300m average depth it would hold 60000 km3.

So another 60 places like the Danaki depression would have to be purchased by the US to spare Kansas from flooding; if the US was to take its fair share of the water and not free load.

 

[Dale]

So which US state do you propose to flood rather than Kansas.

It's not the US, but Quebec has world-wide support to fence off and flood.

 

[Silurian]

I do not see a problem with the US paying Canada to flood part of Canada with the water the US could be responsible for but it is up to the Canadians.

 

[Bootstoots]

As someone who's been formally trained in science popularization (i.e., bringing discoveries to the public), I can agree that I didn't appreciate Gore's efforts. He made too many errors which led to later misunderstandings. One of my FAVORITE popularizations of oceanic carbon is this lecture. It's a very good explanation, it's also very well done from a scientific perspective.
http://www.uctv.tv/shows/Acidic-Oceans-Why-Should-We-Care-Perspectives-on-Ocean-Science-15754

I think Gore was one of the biggest causes of AGW skepticism, mainly because he's a politically divisive figure who is easy to attack on personal grounds (e.g. flying around in private jets). Global warming really shouldn't be a political issue, but its politicization seems to have increased dramatically just after the release of An Inconvenient Truth. There were some errors in the film as well, but I think the political effect happened largely because of who the messenger was, not the message itself. Ad hominem attacks may not disprove the actual point, but that's not politically important.