Hear My Crazy Idea to Beat Global Warming.?

Question

Some time on this days i'm on my top craziness level.
But Craziness Always bring me to a new idea.
today my idea is to beat global warming.
Global Warming can Cause the sea level rising right?
but what happen if we sacrifice some of our land to capture the water.
this one is a crazy idea isn't it?
the thing is if we do that could reduce our land for living right?
how about we sacrifice the land that has less lives less trees end even less water but has aloooot of sand.
interesting right.
we can dig the sand to form an artificial sea.
where we gona put the sand then?
we can just dumped it into the see and form another land or just enlarge the land that arlready exist.
it will enlarge our land but if we not count it carefuly it will just make our sea going up faster.
can u give me any reason that we should or should not do it?

Answer 1

An interesting concept but the scale of the project would be enormous.

The area of the world is a little over 500 million square kilometres, three quarters of which is covered with water. To create a pool big enough to lower the sea level by just one metre would mean digging a hole one kiloemtre deep and nearly the size of California (410,000 square kilometres). The spoil from the hole couldn't be dumped in the oceans as this would displace the water (typical density of the spoil would be 1.6 tons per cubic metre so it wouldn't displace as much water which has a density of a little over1 ton per cubic metre).

Now, when creating a lake the sides have to be gently sloping, if they're vertical they just collapse inwards so the hole into which the sea was drained would need to be many times bigger than California - about the size of the Western US. To put it another way, it would take 6 billion dumper trucks filled with 40 tons per load to move the amount of earth needed to dig the hole.

An alternative solution would be to pump huge quantities of sea water onto the Antarctic interior where it would freeze on contact. There are parts of Antarctica where temperatures rarely get above 50 degrees below freezing so by the time these places heated up enough to melt the new ice humans would have long since been wiped out. Earth's alignment would change slightly but it does that naturally anyway. If enough water were pumped through pipes the pressure and friction would prevent it freezing in the pipes and once the pipelines were built they could operate round the clock unattended.

Here's a link to some other ideas that have been suggested... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/6298507.stm

Answer 2

A common sense approach would dictate that rather than half-solutions such as this, we should work towards reducing our carbon emissions so that glacial melting can be controlled.

The problem with your approach is that this way, we end up displacing too much fertile land with ocean sand. The 'islands' created thus will be near uninhabitable.

You have to understand that some of the most fertile and (of course) densely populated regions of the planet are found near ocean shorelines, and making conduits to the dryer inner regions requires too much time and effort for this 'plan' to be feasible.

By the way, grammar and punctuation would help in making your posts more legible.

Answer 3

Yes global warming can cause sea levels to rise but it can also cause heavy rainfall over land resulting in floods and droughts. Temperatures can swing like crazy and they are already doing so in Asia and Africa.

Water will find its level. No one can trick it. Adjusting landmasses is economically infeasible and only shifts the problem on someone else temporarily.

The only way to slow down global warming is to stop wasting the Earth, there is no other way.

Answer 4

It does no longer would desire to be over the poles. anyplace that would cut back the quantity of photograph voltaic ability hitting the floor might help. If it must be located 0.5 thank you to venus and saved in between the earth and sunlight that would artwork too. It does no longer help cut back the quantity of CO2 getting into the ambience it incredibly is what i think of maximum vegetables are greater worried approximately.

Answer 5

I think Tom is right. I would support a limit on having too many children. If we capped it off at 3 kids per household, we might make it.

Answer 6

cannot rob Peter to pay Paul - nope

want to hear my crazy theory

1800 - earth's population 900 million
1900 - 1.6 billion
2000 - 6 billion
2005 - 6.5 BILLION people

now - what is the source of global warming?

Answer 7

how about we stop polluting our environment and chopping down rain forests and build more efficient systems of living instead? or we can live in a desolate sandbox w/ space helmets on like a bunch of robots.