Rising sea levels: a little less conversation, a little more action!

warning: strtr() [function.strtr]: The second argument is not an array in /home/swordscr/public_html/modules/syslog/syslog.module on line 112.

Promoted by Brendan -- very creative and surprisingly practical proposal

I'm not big on hand-wringing, so if global warming is going to cause changes such as a rising global sea level, I think we ought to be doing something other than stainding defiantly on our eroding beaches and crying out at the rising tides, "Take me!!!". Instead, I think we ought to be preparing to do something about it in an orderly and systematic way.

So, let's consider the problem of rising sea levels and figure out if there's something we can be doing about that inevitability while efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are ongoing.

First, some relevant facts:

Ocean surface = 5,000,000 square miles

Square mile = 5280 x 5280 square feet

So, each rise in sea level of 1 foot = 5,000,000 x 5280 x 5280 x 1 = 139,392,000,000,000 cubic feet of salt water. Let's just round that up and call it 140 trillion cubic feet of water per 1 foot of sea level rise.

Now, currently, sea level is rising a few mm per year. Just to simplify things, let's stipulate that sea level is rising by 3mm per year , which is slightly above the average of 2.8mm rise that has occurred since 1992. There are 304.8 mm in a foot. So, seas are rising by approximately .01 feet each year.

So, to keep sea level constant, we need to figure out somewhere to put 140 trillion x .01 = 1.4 trillion cubic feet of water each year.

One option would be to dig a hole. Basically, this would require digging a hole 1000 feet deep and 50 square miles in area each year for the water to flood into. Such a hole would have a capacity of 50 x 5280 x 5280 x 1000 = 1.4 trillion cubic feet.

To be sure, this would represent by far the largest excavation project in history. The largest excavation to date is the Bingham Canyon Mine , an open pit copper mine in Utah-- a hole about 3 square miles in area and nearly 4000 feet deep at its deepest point-- not big enough to hold even one year worth of sea rise. Also, the Bingham Canyon mine is the result of over 100 years of excavation.

Even though the site for our proposed salt water reservoir could be chosen in a geologically favorable area for easy digging, and we don't have to do anything special with the excavated material except put it in a big pile somewhere, this still sounds like a lot of digging.

Another option would be to put the water in existing holes-- natural depressions in the earth's crust such as the Salton Sea Basin in the southern California Desert. The bottom of the Salton Sea basin is already filled with salt water, but the current surface of the Salton Sea is 220 feet below sea level. If the basin were flooded to sea level, the Salton Sea would expand drastically to near the shoreline of the ancient Lake Cahuilla , a freshwater lake about 110 miles long and 30 miles wide which covered this region until just over 500 years ago.

How much water would Lake Cahuilla hold? Well, we will assume an average depth of 110 feet-- halfway between sea level and the -220 foot elevation of the current Salton Sea, and we will assume the lake will have an area of 110 miles x 30 mile = 3300 square miles. This lake would then hold:

3300 x 5280 x 5280 x 110 = 10 trillion cubic feet of water... about 7 years worth of global warming sea level rise.

Of course, there's a cost to this as well that extends beyond digging the salt water canal from the Gulf of California to the basin, as the present-day towns of Indio, Brawley, and El Centro would be flooded as would numerous smaller towns and thousands of acres of irrigated farmland. On the other hand, the new expanded sea, with a nominally constant shoreline at sea level may present new opportunities as well, including a solution to the water shortages of the desert Southwest as solar-based desalinization becomes feasible, algae-based bioenergy farms, and new beachfront real estate on a stable shoreline southeast of Palm Springs.

Having been to El Centro on a humid, 115 degree August day, I can honestly say that I see some promise in this proposal. It sounds like a better approach than simply allowing unfettered coastal erosion or paying hundreds of billions building levees and creating more "bathtub" cities like New Orleans.

For this solution to make a dent in the problem of sea level rise, the world would obviously need to fill other basins as well, such as the Afar Depression near the Horn of Africa. Fortunately, many of these below-sea-level basins are inhospitable desert wastelands. Another possibility would be to pump sea water up to dry basins above sea level, creating inland seas not unlike the Great Salt Lake-- however, pumping rates sufficient to counteract rates of sea level rise may not be feasible.

Comments :

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Regarding cost

The Panama canal came with a price tag of around $375 million which I gather would be around $7.7 billion today (average inflation rate about 3.3%).

That's obviously a dicey extrapolation because technology has changed and the scope of the problem is different, but arguably those offset to some degree. Back-of-the-envelope I guesstimate that these sorts of projects could be done for some tens of billions of dollars each, which is actually not that much money.

Not that much money for the US, anyway. It's probably more than the countries around the Afar Depression would want to kick in. If this is done on a global scale you'd have to finance it through some sort of global taxation or else a few concerned rich nations banding together.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

…………

Re: cost

Such a canal ought to cost less than the Panama Canal, which was built with primitive methods and equipment over mountainous jungle terrain and required many locks.  The path for the Salton Sea canal to the Sea of Cortez is flat as a pancake.  But we all know that big projects cost much more now than they used to, even taking inflation into account.

I took a tour of Hoover Dam a few years ago, and I asked the guide (who oddly enough seemed to know a thing or two about dams) how much such a dam would cost in the present day.  He said, basically, that you wouldn't be able to build it at any cost; that the scope of the project, the cost, the jurisdictional issues combined with environmental and worker safety issues would render the project politically not feasible. 

I can't say that what he said was untrue-- it just seems like we Americans aren't able to agree on anything for long enough to take on big-scale projects.  Yet who could argue that Hoover Dam has not been a huge success on any number of levels, paying for itself dozens of times over in terms of water and electricity?  And as far as the environment, there's no question that Hoover dam drastically altered the landscape, but who is to say that the alteration has not been for the better, with a beautiful blue lake in the desert and the dam itself a sight to behold?  Why is it that when a beaver makes a dam, that's nature and that's good, but when man makes a dam, that's unnatural?

I am troubled by the fact that all the great construction projects in the world are taking place in other parts of the world.  If Dubai can build a skyscraper half a mile high , why can't we build the Bering Strait Bridge connecting North America and Asia?  If China can build the Three Gorges Dam, why can't we build something like this man-made sea in California, and make it work for us?  

………… parent

It seems like you can tell when great civilizations

are entering their decline because they hit a coasting phase where they don't take on new large projects. The great wall of China, the pyramids, the Roman aqueducts, the European cathedrals -- these occupied thousands of workers for tens or hundreds of years and had significant financial costs. The closest thing we have in our recent history is probably the Apollo program (Wikipedia says the Hoover Dam was completed in four years for only $700 million inflation-adjusted dollars, so it's a mid-size project in historical terms). Like you say I can't imagine the country undertaking something of that magnitude today -- a mission to Mars is mostly just talk now.

The next phase of decline is when the civilization can't even maintain the previously completed projects. One could argue that our crumbing infrastructure suggests we're headed that way.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

I consider us to be only in a temporary malaise

Which can probably be traced back to a string of poor choices, such as Vietnam, which have caused somewhat of a trough in optimism and national pride over the period of a few decades.  I do not envision a Roman Empire type collapse for us.  Back in the days of the Roman Empire, they had no other great society to compare themselves to, to push them, to get the competitive juices flowing, to share technology with. 

We just need smarter leadership, a better national attitude, and a couple breaks and we'll be back to where we need to be.  I suspect that some of our best and brightest and most ambitious are already tiring (in a positive way) of hearing about the Chinese building this or some Arabian city-state building that while we seemingly are stuck in the mud.  

………… parent

Thoughts ...

I took a tour of Hoover Dam a few years ago, and I asked the guide (who
oddly enough seemed to know a thing or two about dams) how much such a
dam would cost in the present day.  He said, basically, that you
wouldn't be able to build it at any cost; that the scope of the
project, the cost, the jurisdictional issues combined with
environmental and worker safety issues would render the project
politically not feasible.

Well, to make such a project work what we would need is another really good depression.  50% un employment would cut those labor and safety costs in no time, just like it did back then. 

Why is it that when a beaver makes a dam, that's nature and that's good, but when man makes a dam, that's unnatural?

This one is easy.  Because beavers naturally live in ponds that they create themselve by building dams ... and people don't.  :) 

... why can't we build something like this man-made sea in California, and make it work for us?

The environmentalist wackos.  Aren't they part of your team?  :)

I liked this diary.  It is a good example of thinking outside the box, IMHO.

 

I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4

………… parent

Find the flaws in the logic

Some will say:

The Earth is not a closed system therefore man-made global warming is false. Therefore there are no rising sea levels due to global warming.

And are you forgetting that maybe the current sea-level isn't the best sea-level man could have? Mass migration is a good thing, just look at the movie "Children of Men"

In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,

…………

Humans are adaptable

We can learn to live in boats.

Don't let emotion cloud your judgement.

If you think polar bear cubs are cute, you are a hysterically emotional sentimentalist.

………… parent

some people are stupid...no big deal

Some will say:

The Earth is not a closed system therefore man-made

global warming is false

The temperature of a closed system cannot change (assuming good mixing within the system). Global warming requires an open system.

 

In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.

………… parent

maybe we can get the illegal mexicans

to dig a hole along the border and fill that up? To separate US and Mexico by a sea - which would promote more sea trade.

"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR

…………

The problem as I see it

is that any attempt to move sea water around like this is going to have a huge energy overhead, which will naturally be paid with fossil fuels, hence more greenhouse gases and a greater contribution to the man made part of global warming.

Consequently it's a bit like bailing out your boat by scooping up water in the front half of the boat and throwing it into the back half.

I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.

…………

That's precisely the beauty of the Salton Sea basin idea

No energy needed to move the sea water-- gravity will do all the work, after the sea level canal is built from the Sea of Cortez to the Salton Sea Basin.  The problem is that this basin may be one of only a few in the world that could be used for this purpose, and only buys 7 years of time by itself.  So I think we would end up needing power at some point to move the water to above-sea-level basins.  Hopefully, solar and wind power or other renewables yet to be invented will be able to power the pumps by that point in the future.

………… parent

What about the up-front energy to dig the thing

I think Tlaloc is saying you'd have to include the effect of those CO2 emissions on raising sea levels in determining whether it would be cost-effective.

Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson

………… parent

Energy costs to construct the canal...

...would be negligible compared to world energy usage, and thus contribution to global warming would also be negligible.  It would be just one large project among hundreds of ongoing projects around the world.

Consider a canal 50 miles long x 200 feet wide x 40 feet deep-- this would equal  50 x 5280 x 200 x 40 = 2.1 billion cubic feet of excavation, one time.  By comparison, my back of the envelope calculations, assuming 100 lbs per cubic foot of excavated material (about the weight of common gravel) and 365 days per year operation, the Bingham Canyon mine alone excavates about 3.2 billion cubic feet of material every year-- and this material has to be trucked up to from the bottom of a mine nearly a mile deep, etc. whereas the excavated material from canal can simply be piled at the side of the canal. 

………… parent

even better than that

If we build the canal, then we can place a hydro-electric damn within it to control the water flow and generate electricity for us.

Water evaporates from the basin, and more flows in, generating electricity. 

In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.

………… parent

The Aral Sea

The Aral Sea in Central Asia would be a good reservoir. The sea has been shrinking for years and is in dire need of replenishing. It is saltwater.

Might be able to divert water south from the Arctic coast of Siberia with a minimal amount of pumping.

qui tacet consentire

…………

The Aral Sea looks like a definite prospect

It looks like it could definitely handle a lot of salt water-- the sea surface has dropped by about 50 feet , and the surface of the body of water was originally 26,000 sq miles and is now 6,500 square miles.  Assuming that the area to be flooded would be flooded to a depth of 25 feet, the capacity of the basin would be approximately:

(19500 x 5280 x5280 x25) + (6500 x5280 x 5280 x 50) = 22.6 trillion cubic feet, or about 16 years of sea level rise @ 3mm/year. 

And, the side benefit of replenishing the Aral Sea!

Not without drawbacks, of course-- the Aral Sea's original shoreline is about 170 feet above sea level, so pumping would be necessary.  And the distance to the ocean is an issue.  My thought would be that the most feasible route would be a feeder canal to the Caspian Sea, which in turn would connect by canal to the Black Sea, which already connects to the Mediterranean. This canal would have enormous economic value to many landlocked Central Asian states, which works strongly in its favor.  Canals from the Caspian to the Black have already been proposed on purely economic grounds. 

………… parent

brainstorming...

Could we seed rainfall/snowfall over mountain ranges (in the winter) to replenish the glaciers on them? Of course, this will require its own energy, but it might be wortwhile.

Seeding rainfall may be the most efficient way to get water to high altitude lakes/basins. In the end, we may recover our energy expenditures if this rainfall feeds into existing hydroelectric dam systems, or by avoiding the need for desalination to provide fresh water. 

In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.

…………

I'd be willing to give it a shot...

...though I have a feeling that the end result would send endless rains to my town, and my backyard would end up being a big lake.

Oh wait, that's already happend this year with no seeding! 

………… parent

The Economist wants to dig your canal

In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.

…………

Half measures :-)

Pshaw on their little pond plan. My plan would turn those boarded-up hotels into perfect fish habitats!  Of course there's the small matter of a couple thousand people's homes which would also be turned into fish habitats...

I wonder if I might need separate inflow and outflow canals to keep salt levels constant--  Evaporation rates have got to be wicked in the summer 110 degree heat.   Or, mabe I can design the initial canal to take advantage of the erosion effects of the initial rush of the water from the Gulf into the Salton Sea Basin to carve out a wide enough channel that the exchange of water from the gulf would be sufficient to keep the salt content under control.

………… parent

Last weekend I was cleaning out my Mom's place on the

shore in Southwestern Conneticut. She's going to sell the place as she doesn't live there any more and neither myself, my brother or sister want or could afford to live there.

What I noticed was that the high tide line on the beach is literally a foot higher than it was when I lived there in the 70's. I don't mean a foot farther up the beach. It's more like 4 or 5 feet up the beach. But the actual height is about a foot higher than it was in the mid 70's.

Tell the neighbors there that global warming isn't happening. These are folks who have multi-million dollar investments into their houses, and if the tide goes up another foot, they will be non-multi-million dollar houses built on swampland.

Seriously. Down the beach, just a quarter mile where the tide came closest to the road, it was about a 6 foot beach at high tide before. Now the tide is lapping against the sea wall they built in the 80's.

It's happening right before our eyes.

…………