3 ms·
If we started doing this on a global scale I don't think we'd have much trouble negating sea level rise for a while. If energy became so cheap as to allow desal
by akiselev 10y ago
If we started doing this on a global scale I don't think we'd have much trouble negating sea level rise for a while. If energy became so cheap as to allow desalination and gargantuan pumping networks to distribute water across the world, the water used in agriculture alone would drastically change the water cycle and weather patterns. Combined with the increasing temperatures increasing evaporation I think we could one day make a difference. We don't need to destroy it, we need to get that pumped water as far out of the water cycle of the ocean as possible and lock it into reagions. Many new rivers will still flow back to the ocean but we can promote agriculture to siphon off the rivers. Imagine undoing the desertification of the once fertile crescent, the dustbowl, or the Colorado river Basin and Texas?
- MichaelGG 10y agoI don't know how to calculate what it'd take to undo desertification of the dustbowl. But 1mm = 320km^3 of water that _doesn't_ go back into the ocean. To stop the current 2-3mm rise that's 1000 cubic km a year. I suppose over something the size of the dust bowl (400,000 sq km) that's not that much. But I'd take a wild guess that by the time we get to that level of terraforming, we can build solar reflectors and just prevent the warming in the first place. Desal'ing all that water is going to require massive amounts of power (big fusion plants) plus all sorts of machinery. Tossing a bunch of mirrors into space seems easier to my engineering-ignorant mind.