If the sea-level rises due to glacier melt can't we pump the water out and maybe use it for energy?

Question

If the global warming predictions are correct, water will be a vast problem and a resource for the world. Like when you get lemons, make lemonade. This might sound stupid but with all the trillions of dollars spent on wars and space exploration shouldn't we start doing some research on pumping the water maybe through pipelines or take out the salt. Use it on dry parched regions of the world. How could it be done? Any ideas?

The energy to pump the water could come from something like pumping oil and using saline(salt water) solution to prime with.

Answer 1

You know that doesn't seem like a bad idea. I personally don't believe in global warming, but if it was possible to use extra water like that to irrigate drier areas. The only problem I see with that is that water evaporates and you cannot control where it is going to rain. So if all the water you pumped rained over the ocean, which there is a huge chance because there is more ocean than land, then the water level is going to stay about the same.

Plus it takes a lot of energy in the desalination process and like i said it wouldnt be a one time thing, it would have to be constant, pump out, desalinate, pump to other area.

You have the mind of an engineer, you should keep up with thoughts like that and look into feasibility of them. Its nice to see intelligent people actually creating theories and checking into them.

Answer 2

You are right besides sea phases clearly upward thrust while the temperature rises irrespective of whether or not glaciers had been gift earlier than the warming or no longer. For instance, that's why there may be typhoon surge throughout a typhoon. The identical does not preserve actual for a cup of water with ice in it, in view that the water is far purer in a pitcher of ice water. Also, individuals don't seem to be worried approximately sea phases emerging from glaciers melting that had been already within the sea, however as a substitute land centered ice. That is why individuals consciousness on Greenland and Antarctica as locations that might substantially difference the elements if the ice there have been to soften.

Answer 3

Your only choice will be too move to higher ground, we are experiencing some melt now and the water is already rising some but it will be 30 - 40 years before we see signifigant change from what Im reading, of course that could be different if we have the big shift as some are predicting. The real answer is too start using the technology we have to stop pollution, like good filter systems on coal burning plants that capture all the particulates and switching away from fossil fuels and going to biofuels an electric vehicles, there are many answers and if we start today we will make a big change soon, it just takes a new way of thinking.

Answer 4

If you pumped the water onto dry, parched regions then it would become evaporated and come back down as rain, anyhow. And with the environment being in the state it is in, it would probably come down as acid rain and do more environmental damage. You would also devastate the natural habitat of all of the plants and animals that have adapted to those kind of conditions. Every bit of this global warming, the Tsunamis, the ozone depleting, animal extinction, diseases evolving and growing, hurricanes, droughts, floods, all of this hell is due to a 50 year after effect of pollution. That means that all of this came from what we did to the environment 50 years ago. Keep in mind, also, that the current government in the U.S. has done away with our environmental laws, taken quite a few animals off of our endangered species lists, okayed drilling in Alaska, (which is one of the very last all natural and untouched regions left in the world), passed a law allowing 10% or more of all of the wildlife sanctuaries and preserves in the US to become developed, among countless other things. China is actually worse than us. They have a dictator ship and will not sign the international environmental policy other countries have. As a matter of fact, since Bush came into office, this is the first time our country has not signed it since the 70's, when it was created. Basically, there is way too much over population and unfortunately about 75% of the population is probably too ignorant to change anything. We will all have to succumb to mother nature's wrath. If we stopped everything RIGHT now we could save the Earth, but how can you convey that kind of importance to so many careless people?

Answer 5

Unfortunatly its not as easy as you say, as frozen water evaporates very little, when melted water evaporates very fast... This alone is enough to gives us a lot of troubles!! Increase humidity levels in the atmosphere, increase heat retentions much more than CO2 can, which means that temperature will increase at certain lattitude and will greatly decrease in others, thus increasing the speed of winds, in both lower and higher altitude to speed unknown to mankinds (by the way did you notice the winds blowing these days? It already blows much more than few years back...)
Which will also increase the strenght of the hurricanes and other mega storms... Which will generate ultrastorm system (multiple hurricanes turning around a common center), that will cross the equator time to times....
In any cases, even pumping the water out of the ocean will not solved ANYTHING! This water must be stored underground or not at all! Which means that it could only be used for drink or not at all...
Sad and powerful things ahead my dear!!

Answer 6

Well, you can't go dumping it on dry parched regions, because then you destroy the ecosystem their, plus with an increase in water, we will get more rain, so those areas will get naturally watered. A pumping system would be huge, way too big of an undertaking. I mean, we can do like Holland, and build a wall around the coasts and live 20 feet below sea level :) That might work.

In the end, everything will even out, and areas that aren't really inhabited, like the u.s southwest deserts, and well, 99% of Australia will probably be quite habitable. So, while we lose current land, we will end up with new habitable land that was inhabitable before. Might even have cities in Antartica.

I think space travel funding needs to be increased, studying mars and other planets just helps us fix ours. Plus, one big thing, is lets just assume we are the only life forms in the universe. Doubtful considering the size, but probably the only humans. Global warming isn't our only issue, we have a whole bunch of things coming up this century that could just wipe us out. So, I really think we need to focus on spreading out to other planets, like Mars.

Answer 7

Actually, I believe that the earth has this already covered. If the ice caps melt and the sea levels rise by a few feet, then the surface area of water will increase. Not just by the extra coastal area that is now underwater either. it is like expanding a spherical volume. Increase the diameter a bit and the surface area are increases a lot more. The increased surface area of water on the planet will be able to absorb more heat from the sun which will result in more evaporation and thus more rain.

Answer 8

Do you know how many billions, perhaps trillions, of gallons of SALT water we are talking about here? It is not technically plausible to desalinize that much water or do what you are suggesting as far as pumping on a scale that would have any impact on the rising sea levels if you choose to believe the global warming theories.

Answer 9

When the ice melts into the ocean, it creates a bigger carbon sink and acts as a negative feedback to global warming (helps reverse global warming). If you suck the water out of the ocean, then you don't have as big of a carbon sink, and the particulates won't have anywhere to go, thereby keeping it warm.

You should take the money for the pump and put mirrors on top of every building and house, and install solar panels everywhere you can..

Answer 10

The way I understand it is that as the (white, reflective) glaciers melt, the surrounding water (dark, absorptive) holds heat and contributes to more melting. Although your idea is novel, it does nothing to address the loss of the white glacial mass that reflects heat. The end result is much like fixing a leaky boat by using a thimble to bail the water out. Sorry, that's just my (very) basic understanding of how the cycle works...I could be wrong!