Re: global warming and sea level rise

From: Mike Lorrey (
Date: Fri Jul 27 2001 - 15:23:13 MDT

Spike Jones wrote:
> Harvey Newstrom wrote:
> > > There is no need to put dykes around Florida, for if we hold
> > > the sea level we could intentionally warm the planet, melt some of the
> > > Northern ice and make for more productive land.
> >
> > You don't expect Florida voters to agree to that, do you?
> Sure. They are among those who have the most to gain. I am suggesting
> we learn first how to take up excess water in order to hold the sea level
> where it is currently, indefinitely. Step 1 will be to buy up land around
> the great inlands seas, such as the Caspian and Black, and divert water
> into them, demonstrating that we *can* lower the sea level on demand.
> Then we start the warming, reclaiming much of the north countries.

Hey, guess what? This is where you could say that paving the planet can,
in fact save it.

Okay, look at it this way: the earth started with about 50 times the
atmosphere it has now, most of which was CO2, which is now locked in
limestone, with some in fossil fueld deposits. What are the major two
components of fossil fuels? Hydrogen and Carbon. What is limestone?
Calcium, carbon, and oxygen, right?

So, what we do is extract calcium and water from sea water, and bind it
with CO2 from the atmosphere to build more and more concrete structures
over time: underwater cities, Mt Everest sized base anchors for
skyhooks, etc, thus sequestering that CO2, and all that unneeded water
in solid structures that are of use...

The problem with the Great Wall of China is that its not round. Build a
huge concrete wall in a circle and you've got god's own rain cistern.

> If we put our minds to it, we could find many good ways to store
> fresh water on what is currently wetlands or unused dry land. We may
> need to move some earth. We can do that. We can use the water as
> a massive heat sink to moderate climates.
> Part of this vision is to stop the waste resulting from letting rivers dump into
> the sea. Consider the salmon situation. Looks to me like we could
> build an artificial river of sorts, where we dump hatchery smolts into
> the sea with a limited amount of water out of a pipe perhaps 4 meters
> in diameter with a flow rate of perhaps 50-200 cubic meters per second
> flowing into Puget Sound in place of the current Columbia River Waste
> Site. The Salmon go to sea, eat stuff, get big, then when they come
> back, you catch em all, every last one of em. Any that get upstream
> are just wasted food. Extract some roe, start the whole cycle again.
> The wealth created in fish biomass alone would stagger the imagination.

The problem is that it ain't that simple. We've been wasting millions on
reintroducing the atlantic salmon to the Connecticutt River basin, but
few return because they are all getting caught by the damn europeans and
chinese fishing in the ocean.

> Then all that stored water can be piped all over the place, and vaaaast
> stretches of land can be reclaimed. One really needs to look down, next
> time you fly over it.
> Mike Lorrey suggested a problem with inadequate soils for trees. We can
> deal with this problem too, by establishing species that are water intensive
> but not necessarily soil intensive, such as rain forest trees, which deal with
> low soil quantities.

Well, the problem isn't the lack of soil, its the lack of water
retention in the soil. What western soils need is a good 50-100 years of
big city people crap spread all over em. Biosolids are the way to go.
Build up a nice non-porous layer of clay to retain the water under the
biosolids, and away you go.

> > I also don't
> > think most Floridians would want to leave the country to move back north.
> Im not suggesting that they do, however in my vision, the north country
> from whence most Floridians came would eventually get a climate
> resembling the Sunshine State.

Nah, just pass a sunset law: anybody left after a certain date gets
cryoed.. ;)

> > Besides, we have developed lands and infrastructure. You are trading
> > expensive, devolped, popular land for undeveloped, remote wilderness.
> No trade necessary. This whole scheme hinges upon our ability to
> control water sufficiently to hold the sea level at its current level. Note
> that even this is "unnatural" for sea levels were rising before humans
> did anything to affect them.

Even if you trade it, just what was Florida 50 years ago? Nothing but
swamp. It won't take that long to build again in the north, and the
great thing is that there is far more acreage up north than there is
down south. Give em ten acres for one and its all even.

> > Of, course I am trying to retire down in
> > Florida. ("It's always about Florida, isn't it Harv?")
> Ive nothing against Florida. I have many fond memories from there.
> Its not just Florida. There is a lot of valuable land close to the sea.
> We can stop the sea rise and keep those places. We can make a
> bunch of new fresh water inland seas, creating a bunch of new
> valuable waterfront property where now is wasteland, with nothing
> but a bunch of weeds and unemployed wild animals on it that dont
> pay taxes.

Thats right. Flood the Caspian and you'll quadruple the amount of
waterfront there. I'm still betting that it's water level rise the past
40 years has been a natural response to the .5-1 degree rise claimed by
scientists, and it will keep rising, accumlating rain water.

There's the Death Valley as well as a high altitude landlocked basin in
Wyoming (and a few other places along the continental divide) that could
all be used as reservoirs.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:57 MDT