Skip to main content
21 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 6, 2022 at 18:16 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
providing numbers related to the alternative cost
Sep 29, 2022 at 9:35 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
Improving the answer
Sep 18, 2022 at 9:25 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
1.2 billion workforce
Sep 2, 2022 at 21:20 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
Of course it would be expensive but large scale geoengineering is the only way now - we've been doing CO2 emissions geoengineering for many years now
Aug 19, 2022 at 17:18 comment added Mars Robertson @JeopardyTempest "cost money" - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_works - I would have thought we have a recession and there will be massive infrastructure projects to provide employment? But that's just me, I'm aware of what is going with the climate and I'm aware how others are unaware. That's fine.
Aug 19, 2022 at 15:36 comment added JeopardyTempest Yet the project costs money to build (and the unviable cost to transfer power from such remote areas has been looked at in other posts I believe). Are there a very large number locations of similar feasibility? Then the potentiality could be more closely scrutinized. As is I can't see it being meaningful help based upon your numbers.
Aug 18, 2022 at 21:12 comment added jeffronicus Evaporation is a significant factor for any open-water body in a climate like the arid interior of California: "The open water surface evaporation rate at the Salton Sea is estimated at approximately 69 inches per year and the average annual crop reference evapotranspiration rate at Brawley is reported to be approximately 71 inches per year (California Irrigation Management Information System [CIMIS] 2012)." That is, water moved out of the ocean to an inland reservoir will evaporate, fall as rain somewhere else, and then make its way back to the ocean.
Aug 18, 2022 at 19:51 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
Reformatting
Aug 18, 2022 at 9:53 comment added Mars Robertson Matter of optics and presenting data. Option 1: 10.1 cm since 1992 Option 2: 3mm per year. In this particular example - only 1 project in 1 area - not even pumping but letting it flow downhill to generate hydropower in the process. Then we can continue with the project and FLOOD the DESERT just like YC Combinator suggested in the "Request for Startups - Desert Flooding"
Aug 18, 2022 at 5:59 comment added JeopardyTempest Wikipedia suggests a 10.1 cm sea level rise since 1992 and "2–3 metres (6.6–9.8 ft) if global warming is limited to 1.5 °C", so if your math is right, it's a fairly insignificant drop in the bucket? So your headline and excitement seem a bit out of place?
Aug 17, 2022 at 10:31 comment added Mars Robertson Despite providing a detailed calculation on how much (3mm, roughly the annual sea rise) and even linking to another answer that comes to the same result this post is currently -2... Thank you for the comments so far, I was able to improve the answer.
Aug 16, 2022 at 13:08 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
typos, correction
Aug 16, 2022 at 10:06 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
more quotes and references
Aug 16, 2022 at 9:58 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
added 33 characters in body
Aug 16, 2022 at 9:52 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
moral and ethical aspects of geoengineering
Aug 16, 2022 at 9:44 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
Even better scientific paper
Aug 16, 2022 at 9:12 comment added gerrit How much would this reduce sea level? Or do you mean indirectly, by helping with low-carbon energy sources (which I don't think is what the question is after)?
Aug 16, 2022 at 7:51 history edited Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0
Comment suggesting I add a summary of an article
Aug 16, 2022 at 0:33 review Low quality posts
Aug 16, 2022 at 7:55
S Aug 15, 2022 at 19:27 review First answers
Aug 15, 2022 at 21:11
S Aug 15, 2022 at 19:27 history answered Mars Robertson CC BY-SA 4.0