Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 65

Thread: What if all the ice melted...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    10,111

    What if all the ice melted...

    Assume that all the ice in the major ice sheets melted. Maybe it's a couple centuries or a couple millenia from now. How would human civilization adjust? What would be the climatic effects?

    The cause isn't necessarily important. It could be "sudden global warming" (courtesy of Stephen Hawking) or an ice melting asteroid impact or volcanism. My theoretical postulate is that a minor global warming further destabilizes the West Antarctic Ice Shelf leading to it's failure. This causes further isostatic effects that increase (catastrophic) volcanism along the Trans-Antarctic Mountains that start melting and shifting the East Antarctic ice. This rise in sea level with a minor Global warming effect eventually bouys and melts Greenland too. I'm not sure how probable this scenario is or how long it might take, but I think the mechanics are possible.

    Seal level rise estimates range from 60m to 80m (200ft to 260). Rapid post-glacial rebound (7.5cm/3inches per year are not uncommon) would eventually lift parts of Greenland and Antarctica back above the waves, but for several centuries parts of those areas would probably remain archipelagos (most of West Antarctica is below Mean Sea Level now and much of Greenland's sub-glacial interior is near MSL at the present time). Given a couple centuries for the glaciated areas to rebound a bit, solar-driven thermal expansion of the oceans, local sinking of newly inundated continents from sea water along the shore, continental gravity effects along the shore, erosion along the shore, and estimate errors of current glacial volume and ice density I think it is not improbable to postulate a total sea level rise of 92 meters (300ft). After all, that corresponds nicely with my map's topography interval.

    Here's a cool mod for Google Maps that allows you to select sea level rise from 1-14m.

    Here's an interesting set of maps of eastern North America at several intervals, and Europe and the world at 100m. The 100m map is a little higher (27ft higher) than what I am postulating.

    • On the bright side:

    The northwest passage would be open and would allow quicker shipping between eastern Asia and western Europe.
    The increase in shallow sea area might mean better fishing banks.
    The enlarged gulf of Mexico might send storms farther west and north bringing rain to drier plains and mountainous desert regions of North America, increasing agricultural production.
    The warmed tundra may become agriculturally productive.
    The alterations of climate to Antarctica may make non-contamination concerns of the "pristine" continent a non-issue and allow for the possible mining of coal and oil known to exist in the region.
    Lots of jobs building dikes for cities that can be saved.
    Lots of jobs builting cities at sea that will rise with the waters as they flood.
    New canals between the Atlantic and Pacific might be built with shorter distances.

    What else can y'all think of?

    • On the down side:

    Lots of places get flooded.
    Hurricanes reach can farther with warm gulf water farther north, causing storm surges that reach into Illinois.
    Arable land is flooded reducing agricultural productivity.
    What else bad could happen?



    • Places that get flooded:

    The US loses all of FL, LA and DE (maybe some small islands). Major sections of RI, MA, RI, MD, NJ, VA, NC ,SC, GA, and AL up to the piedmont regions get flooded. NY loses long island, most of NYC and the Hudson River Valley connects the Saint Lawrence Seaway with the Atlantic making New England and New Brunswick one large island. Sections of MS along both east and west borders flood turning central MS into a peninsula. Half of AR is lost. The gulf extends into TX a hundred miles or so and a new Mississippi Gulf replaces the Lower Mississippi Valley nearly making Saint Louis a port city (Cairo, Illinois becomes a delta city for the Miss while Cairo, Egypt on the Nile partially disappears).

    In the western US, CA and Mexico lose the Imperial Valley and Baja CA is isolated from the rest of Mexico. The sea extends halfway up the Colorado river towards the Hoover Dam. California's Central Valley floods (unless a big dike is built across the narrow Carquinez Strait . The pacific northwest's river valleys are inundated at Seattle/Tacoma in WA and the Columbia Willamette valley floods making Eugene, OR a port city.

    I'm not as sure what happens in the north, but low areas of Alaska in the far north and west along the Bering Sea probably flood. Hudson Bay's shoreline increases a hundred miles in places. The sea floods the Saint Lawrence Seaway and turns Lake Ontario into a salt water sea unless damed at the strait. The other great lakes remain above sea level. Ships sail down the center of what used to be Greenland's interior.

    In South America, Brazil finds the Amazon is a new inland sea and the Platte is also a new gulf. Parts of Columbia, Venezuela are flooded into the interior as Surinam and the Guianas shrink by half.

    Much of Ireland and southern England are flooded. London is gone. Large areas of France are under water. The low countries are gone including half of Germany, a quarter of Poland and all of Denmark. Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania are mostly flooded including a large portion of Russia along the baltic. Northern Italy is flooded and Seville, Spain, becomes a bay. Israel's interior floods from the outside with a strait near Haifa, making the Jordan River valley, the Dead Sea and the Sea of Gallilee one sea. The Black Sea rises and may even flood far up the Danube creating several seas inside Romania and Hungary. The Black Sea may also flood into the Capsian turning it into a salt water sea that is double its current size, flooding up the Volga and into the Russian interior. The Persian Gulf extends further north over mesopotamia in Iraq. A large part of north central Siberia is inundated from the Arctic Ocean.

    Sections of North Africa slide under the waves forming a small sea in Tunisia and Algeria. Parts of Libya and Eqypt become seas. The low areas of Mauritania and Senegal are flooded.

    North East China is flooded as are parts of Manchuria. Coastal areas of South East Asia are flooded in Cambodia, Thailand, Burma and Bangladesh. The Indian subcontinent becomes the Indian Peninsula as the Ganges and Indus Valleys both flood. A large portion of Pakistan is under water.

    Australia appears to get an inland sea opening to the ocean in the south, along with an enlargement of the Gulf of Carpenteria in the north. Lots of various islands in the oceans either shrink or disappear entirely.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    763
    everything depend when that would happen, if we have at least 100-200 years then do not worry, advanced tecnology will have no problems to deal with such trivial problem, for example we can cover all ice with something reflective, or dig very big holes in the ocean so we will have some material for new continent and also enough place to keed aditional water.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    272
    interesting scenario.

    how would civilisation adjust? depends on the time frame.

    Over periods of hundreds of years cities can be built and rebuilt according to economic geography, industries adjust and patterns of land use change.

    over a short period the adjustment would be rather difficult.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    10,111
    Digix, the ice sheets are about as reflective as they can be at thermal wavelengths. The heat transfer is through conduction and convection/advection with current climate regimes. In the future, antarctica may be warmed by solar radiation hitting the ground if the albedo decreases (possibly by local volcanism). However, a lot of solar radiation goes into heating the atmosphere and not the ground directly.
    Last edited by Ara Pacis; 2006-Jun-14 at 07:52 AM.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  5. #5
    A lot of the problem is that people count all the ice there is, which is not the case, all the ice that is buoyant in the water as of now does not count because when/if it melts it adds nothing, only ice over land that melts will add to this theoretical problem.

    I have been voicing the same opinion over many forums about this exact thing...people react to global warming as if the world will end, absolutely not the case as per effect of rising sea level (and that's 90% of all argument over global warming) because the adjustments will be very small and slow...people always scream "but that's millions of people bla blaa bla" yea, it is, but honestly so what, they are going to move...whoopey do, I have moved like 10 times in my life, and I am again in 2 days...I am pretty sure I will survive.

    Now I do say this, the problems from global warming will not be sea level but the climatic effects, if such an accelerated global warming did take place it could disturb the oceanic current jet streams riping weather as we know it into chaos...But hey, that's what chemtrails are for right?

    And there would be some wild changes with the food-chain as we know it, but we would survive.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    10,111
    I tried to avoid the GW boogeyman. Although there is some GW in my scenario, it's not specified as anthropogenic. I postulate a volcanic bright line instead of runaway GW, although GW could trigger the volcanism indirectly. I'm interested in the catastrophe (in geologic terms) itself and human reaction rather than predicting doom and gloom.

    These are some good basic science links for sea level rise.
    http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html --estimates 80m potential
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise --estimates 68.8m

    Link on Istostasy
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostasy -- continental bouyancy above the mantle
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-glacial_rebound --rise after glaciers melt (might displace sea water and increase sea levels)
    http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geo...lac/isostasy1/ --helpful graphics and descriptions

    Antarctica
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica --look at rock surface image in geology section to see what would be above current sea level
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet --potential collapse of the WAIS
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Antarctic_Mountains
    http://home.freeuk.com/gtlloyd/tam/main.htm --Trans-Antarctic Mountains , follow the links
    http://www.mantleplumes.org/Antarctica.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Erebus -- actively erupting volcano in Antarctica
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deception_Island --active volcano in Antarctica
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_T...8Antarctica%29 --volcano in Antarctica
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Melbourne --active volcano in antarctica

    Current opinion is that the TAM orogeny and volcanism is caused by the mantle flowing under the continental crust because the ice sheet is making east antarctica too heavy (like a see-saw) forcing part of it up. I wonder if the disapperance (in geological terms) of the WAIS would exacerbate the mid-continental rift by both reducing the counterbalancing ice load (isostasy) of west Antarctica and increasing the outflow of east Antarctica ice over the TAM. The imbalance might increase magma movement that would result in increased volcanism of the currently active and dormant volcanos along the rift zone. Increased volcanism might increase outflow and melting of east antarctica directly and by decreasing albedo of the ice a little from ash deposition. And this is without invoking mantle plume theory, which might also be supported by evidence and have much more catastrophic results.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    25,705
    If the land-based ice sheets melted? I'd drown. My apartment's maybe 40 feet above sea level--it depends on how high the bluff down the block is, which I'm not sure.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    1,885
    Not to mention that the lower latitudes would be uninhabitable so less land mass for the population of our little marble.

  9. #9
    If sea levels started raising by say 20 cm a year today humanity would be in a lot of trouble. Many people would die. People in Bangladesh have enough trouble with floods as it is. Also, many people who are currently clawing their way out of poverty would be thown back into dire poverty and will have much higher death rates because of it.

    Some land will or may become agriculturally viable. A great deal of agricultural land will be lost. In general agricultural land is created. Creating farms in new areas will have costs.

    When you say:

    Lots of jobs building dikes for cities that can be saved.
    Lots of jobs builting cities at sea that will rise with the waters as they flood.

    You make it sound as if it is a good thing. All these people will be working just to stop our lives getting worse, not to make them better. Money will be spent to stop damage occuring, not to improve things.

    One could point to Europe's recovery from world war two and use it to support the idea that humanity could recover quickly from sea level rises, but perhaps life would end up more like in Eastern Europe than Western Europe.

    In the past it was thought that without human interference the earth might pass back into a period of glaciation. However there is now evidence that the earth may have left the ice age. If humans, or other effects, manage to melt the icecaps, the earth may never reform them.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831
    People in high latitudes seem to nurture [even unconsciously] the idea that a global warming could be a positive thing. Dreams of sowing the tundra, turning Blackpool into a true summer resort, yachting across the Arctic, and so on. What people don´t seem to realize is that the life in the tropics [where most humans live] would be unbearable. People would have to be relocated for sure. Perhaps the ice-free Antarctica could be turned into a country for the climate refugees...

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    2,430
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren
    If the land-based ice sheets melted? I'd drown.
    Really?

    It would really take you over a hundred years to walk away from your current location??

  12. #12
    Really?

    It would really take you over a hundred years to walk away from your current location??
    Maybe he lives in Banglidesh and India and Pakistan have closed their borders giving him little choice?

  13. #13
    A 60m rise in sea level would be an unmitigated catastrophe in the short term, and in truth, I think we'd have a hard time dealing with it. Here are my reasons:

    1.) Much of the world's agriculturally-productive lowlands would be inundated. Ditto for most of the coastal cities, with all of their economies and history; the Venetian option would not be viable for a 60m rise. Three meters, yeah. Ten, maybe. Not 60. Also think of all the environmental contaminants of these cities that would sink with them: landfills, junkyards, factories, you name it.

    2.) Cold-water fisheries would be hard hit; furthermore, warm water is in general less productive than cold water. There's also the possibility that it could shut down the long-running thermohaline circulation; this would limit the supply of oxygen and nutrient rich waters to the lower ocean, perhaps making it anoxic. Think of the Black Sea all over the world.

    3.) Most of the world's coral reefs would die, either from too-warm water, or being too deep, or both.

    4.) Lowland marshes and swamps would be completely destroyed, as would any coastal forests of all types: taiga, rain forest, temperate deciduous. Furthermore, it would take a long time for the "new" coast to reach equilibrium and build up protective features like barrier islands, so new beachfront property would take storms on the chin; erosion would be fierce.

    5.) Though opinions vary, I'm of the persuasion that the warmer seas would make hurricanes more common and violent than they are today; furthermore, with the coast farther inland, cities that never have to worry about 'canes now would have their work cut out for them.

    6.) A concern that's come to the fore relatively recently is that tropical diseases would become more widespread as well: yellow fever, malaria, sleeping sickness, and the like could significantly expand their range.

    7.) Finally, there are the fudge factors that could make all the difference. Would the sea level rise and warmer temperatures destablize hydrate deposits? If so, we'd be in a world of trouble. As for the tundra, if it melted it would release a huge amount of methane into the atmosphere which would compound our problems.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    510
    Those maps have good news and bad news for the part of Florida that I live in. First the good news: I live in the part of Florida that will be an island if the ocean rises 90 meters. This would make this area a new Hawaii. A lot of nice big tourist hotels to build here - good for business/jobs.

    Now for the bad news: If the ocean rises another 10 meters, our little island paradise will disappear beneath the waves.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    10,111
    Well, sea level rise might happen from Global Warming alone, but I was posing the possibility of another mechanism, antarctic volcanism to melt or displace the majority of ice. East Antarctica would be responsible for the lions share of sea level rise (60-70 meters). Even if it is not all melted, ice that is accelerated into the ocean would displace the water immediately as if it had melted. For the sake of argument, I was thinking that it could take place in 100-200 years, although the first pulse from WAIS could raise sea levels 5-7 meters in a couple decades.

    Ronald, I put down a good column and a bad column, but I'm not favoring one other the other.

    I'm not sure if this cold freshwater pulse would necessesarily raise global temperatures, much in the short term. It might cause local temperature rises by altering ocean and atmospheric currents. I assume it would alter the thermohaline current, but eventually a new one would probably be restart as the ice and freshwater is slowly incorporated. Also, local currents in each basin may perform the same task, but I'm guessing.

    I think the methane ice in the sea floors would be ok. From what I've read they are kept in place by a combination of pressure and temperature as the theory goes. Rising seas would increase the pressure keeping them in place and I'm not postulating enough GW that the entire ocean warms significantly. The theory of Methane ice claims that the ice turns to gas when the sea levels are too low to keep enough pressure on the deposits, uncorking them. This causes greenhouse gas warming that melts ice and ends the ice age.

    This catastrophe could be reversed eventually. In several hundred years the depressed areas of greenland and antarctica would lift above the future sea level due to post-glacial rebound (isostasy) and might start retaining snow and ice again. Eventually the depressed areas could lift back to 300-400m above future sea level (maybe more), unless ice starts weighing it back down. This would raise sea level initially by displacing sea water, but if it collects ice then sea level would fall again.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Trantor
    Those maps have good news and bad news for the part of Florida that I live in. First the good news: I live in the part of Florida that will be an island if the ocean rises 90 meters. This would make this area a new Hawaii. A lot of nice big tourist hotels to build here - good for business/jobs.
    Except that everyone else is too busy fighting for survival to think about holidays.
    I keep getting irritated when I see "jobs created" used as a gauge for success.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen
    Except that everyone else is too busy fighting for survival to think about holidays.
    I keep getting irritated when I see "jobs created" used as a gauge for success.
    I can agree with that. "Jobs created" doesn't tell you much about the type of job created or how many other possibly better jobs were lost at the same time.

    I just thought it funny that I happen to live in the only area in Florida that will be a small island when/if the ice caps melt enough to raise the sea level by 90 meters. Maybe I should think about buying a boat.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    10,111
    Aren't there two parts of Florida that would be above 300 feet? Britton Hill (345 ft) in the Panhandle and Sugarloaf Mountain (312 ft) near Clearwater would both be above future sea level, until eroded away.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    25,705
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak
    Maybe he lives in Banglidesh and India and Pakistan have closed their borders giving him little choice?
    She, she, she!

    And I was kind of trying to point out that my region would essentially become a lot of volcanic islands. Quite a lot of the Olympic Rain Forest, not that far away, is at sea level or not much higher. It's one of I believe four temperate rain forests in the world, and while some of it (leaving aside climatic variation) would be okay, large amounts of it wouldn't.

    And, frankly, while it wouldn't take me 100 years to walk away, I don't move very easily. Stupid arthritis/scoliosis.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    510
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis
    Aren't there two parts of Florida that would be above 300 feet? Britton Hill (345 ft) in the Panhandle and Sugarloaf Mountain (312 ft) near Clearwater would both be above future sea level, until eroded away.
    I was only responding to the images on the linked maps. I know the Panhandle area is above 300 feet, but I've never heard of a Sugarloaf Mountain near Clearwater. I live about 50 miles from Clearwater and have relatives who live there. Clearwater is all very flat. I know Pasco county and Hernando County(just north of Clearwater) have some inland areas that are at a higher elevation(those areas would be the northern part of that little island). I would say that the map is pretty accurate in it's representation of what would be left of Florida after a 300 foot sea level rise.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    510
    I did a little checking and found out that Sugarloaf Mountain is actually in Lake County. This is the county just north of where I live. It too would be located in the north eastern part of the island. The island would include the highest parts of Pasco, Hernando, Lake, and Polk Counties. Mostly it would be in Lake and Polk Counties.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    177
    The whole global warming debate is not really serious.

    If and thats a very big if, global warming were to be anything more then a minor hypothetical nuisance, we would actually do something about it. For the annual cost of a few hundred million dollars at most, we could plunge the world in to a low atmospheric CO2 condition that is characterized by lower mean temperatures aka as an "Ice Age".

    It is not even a scientifically debatable proposition. The work of Scripps Institute oceanographers have determined that vast portions of the oceans are effectively deserts with as little life growing there as in the mid-Sahara. And they know the reason why, and what to do about it.

    Its very cheap too.

    You could even say its a way to restore cetacean (whales) populations. And after extensive experimentation was offered as such a proposition.

    The problem and solution is most easily explained by a parable and analogy. Just like your home garden or lawn, sometimes the absence of a tiny amount of a certain mineral in the soil leads to stunted plant growth. Supply the missing ingredient and your garden or lawn grows lushly.

    Such is the problem in the central oceans far from land and rivers carrying minerals into the water. The missing trace mineral? Why its common rust!

    Some large portion of the Earth is Iron, but its rare in the surface waters of the central oceans. The tiny plants and animals have eaten all of it out of the water,and their growth is stunted because their is none left.

    In these watery deserts, dump a little rust in the water and stand back and watch the oceans bloom. Watch the krill populations grow; watch the shrimp and fish populations grow; watch the whales gorge, and think they have died and gone to heaven. And watch the CO2 percentage in the atmosphere plunge.

    No scientist denies this; nor do any of the so-called environmental organizations.

    Real environmentalists know that this would cure any global warming if it was really due to CO2 in the atmosphere but don't feel the need to recommend spending the few hundred million dollars to cure global warming without lots of study to prevent doing "too good" a job and creating an Ice Age.

    The solution is much like you would do to your garden or lawn. Feed it the missing trace mineral. In this case, dump iron rust into the oceans from ships loaded with it. It doesn't take much "fertilizing" either. Experiments with a few tiny oceanographer research vessels have caused plant growth easily discernible from satellites in space over several hundred square miles of ocean.

    As for the environment organizations, they oppose its adoption as "not natural" to regulate the climate, thusly. But they don't seem to think sequestering CO2 from power plants is "unnatural" for some reason. Perhaps because it would cost hundreds of billions instead, therfore won't happen, and they can continue to make a living warning of global warming.

  23. #23
    Assume that all the ice in the major ice sheets melted. How would human civilization adjust? What would be the climatic effects?
    As long as it does not keep on transfering until it ends up as the horrible hardened liquid ice, we should be fine

    (reference to a CT thread)

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    10,111
    NP, got some links? I'd like to read up on this.
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    16,659
    Googling on "iron ocean algae" will pick up quite a few references to the concept, here's one:

    http://www.whoi.edu/mr/pr.do?id=971

    How practical/effective it would be and side effects are yet to be determined. Personally, I like tree farming and a major push in non fossil fuel power production. I would agree though, that given the level of concern voiced on the issue, there should be major R&D on ways of extracting CO2 from the air. At the moment, this idea and many others have yet to be explored in any significant way. Are they practical? Who knows? And we won't know until we seriously study them.

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,368
    Wouldn't the melting of all the polar ice actually increase the oceans' ability to sequester more CO2? Increased introduction of CO2 by human industry might well artificially spike the temperatures by a measurable amount, but wouldn't that be mitigated somewhat by newly exposed ocean actively pulling it out of the air?

    I keep going back to the Iceball Earth scenario, and how it goes on about CO2 levels in the atmosphere increasing dramatically as more ocean went under ice, and I was wondering whether the melting of the polar caps, inconvenient as it might be to life which has learned to live in a frozen wasteland, might introduce a new level of equilibrium which can help reverse some of the damage as our technology continues to control and curb CO2 emissions.

  27. #27
    Wouldn't the melting of all the polar ice actually increase the oceans' ability to sequester more CO2?
    First I thought, "There is already CO2 in the ice so melting it shouldn't make a big difference." But if that ice was the result of snow, then snow might have less CO2 than rain water? However, warmer oceans hold less CO2 so perhaps it's a case of win some, lose some.

    Extra precipitation would increase the chemical weathering of rocks which would remove some carbon dioxide from the air. There might be a great deal of weathering on the newly exposed land of Antartica and Greenland. However I think this effect might be too slow to help us. And I am sure the loss of reflection from ice would contribute more to warming than the extra absorbtion of CO2.

    As for seeding the oceans with iron as Natural-Philosphoer mentions, this could lock up a great deal of carbon and solve global warming problems. Unfortunately this might cost $50 per ton of carbon locked up. Very roughly the average American emits about 10 tons of carbon into the air a year, so it would cost $500 to lock it up. However, switching to wind, nuclear and other low emission sources of power should cut CO2 emissions roughly in half for only about $50-60 dollars per person, provided changes are made gradually.

    Personally I wouldn't be surprised if we could seed oceans for less than $50 per ton of carbon locked up, but I don't think it would be cheaper than just emmitting less carbon in the first place.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    8,831
    The inundated vegetation of coastal [and sometimes far into the continent as the case of the Amazon] areas worldwide would send a huge amount of methane up to the atmosphere. I think this would probably compensate for any ocean CO2 sequestration ability.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Posts
    149
    If seeding the ocean with rust is so easy, then why shouldn't we consider it a practical means of tailoring our climate to whatever we define as desirable?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    10,368
    Quote Originally Posted by samsara15
    If seeding the ocean with rust is so easy, then why shouldn't we consider it a practical means of tailoring our climate to whatever we define as desirable?
    Too many environmentalist wackos screaming bloody murder about humans tampering with the environment, and on the other end of the spectrum, too many soulless exploiters that will use concepts only being considered as band aids for a crisis as an excuse to become lax with environmental maintenance and protection elsewhere.

    I remind you that the levee system on the Mississippi River, the damming of the Colorado River, the draining of the Everglades and other such engineering projects were also experiments in tailoring the environment to suit our needs.

    We're really not that good at it. I believe the Hippocratic "first do no harm" rule should apply.

Similar Threads

  1. One of Jupiter's Moons is Melted!
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2010-Jan-25, 04:20 PM
  2. If the Antarctic Ice Sheet completely melted.
    By Click Ticker in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 64
    Last Post: 2008-Jan-06, 02:37 PM
  3. Earth Formed from Melted Asteroids
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Sep-07, 08:44 PM
  4. Earth formed from melted asteroids
    By Padawan in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 2005-Jun-15, 09:50 PM
  5. Is the Earth's mantle melted?
    By Duane in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 2004-Dec-10, 06:38 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •