Ok so im probably a huge idiot for even thinking this is probable and might just be too stupid to understand why this wouldn't work but theoretically couldn't we create a huge, wide crater in the ocean to decrease worldwide water levels?

Ok so im probably a huge idiot for even thinking this is probable and might just be too stupid to understand why this wouldn't work but theoretically couldn't we create a huge, wide crater in the ocean to decrease worldwide water levels?

 

I'm not sure I see how you do that on the level required without causing a whole heap of environmental damage.

And where are you going to put the material that is removed?

The surface of the ocean is ~3.6×10⁸ km². If we assume the oceans will rise 7 meters (typical estimate by climatologists), then the volume of water increase is ~3.6×7×10⁸ km² = ~25.2×10⁸ km².

 

Mt. Everest occupies about 60 km². Thus, to dig a hole big enough to level the oceans from 7 meters to 0 meters rise would require moving ~25.2×10⁸ km²/60km² = ~4.2×10⁷ = 42,000,000 Mt. Everest volumes of dredge from the ocean floor.

 

Where do you propose putting 42 million Mt. Everests? Moreover, what equipment do you suggest could do it? And, surely it would create a major environmental trauma.

The surface of the ocean is ~3.6×10⁸ km². If we assume the oceans will rise 7 meters (typical estimate by climatologists), then the volume of water increase is ~3.6×7×10⁸ km² = ~25.2×10⁸ km².

 

Mt. Everest occupies about 60 km². Thus, to dig a hole big enough to level the oceans from 7 meters to 0 meters rise would require moving ~25.2×10⁸ km²/60km² = ~4.2×10⁷ = 42,000,000 Mt. Everest volumes of dredge from the ocean floor.

 

Where do you propose putting 42 million Mt. Everests? Moreover, what equipment do you suggest could do it? And, surely it would create a major environmental trauma.

 

 

These ideas are good questions but perhaps we should not be quite so hard on the OP as his idea may be well beyond our present technology, but is within the bounds of the physically correct.

 

Ed, a small correction to your arithmetic, you should work in metres or kilometres, and not mix them.

 

Taking your area figures as correct, raising the ocean 7m will not mean a volume increase of 3.6 x 7 x 10⁸, but of 3.6 x 7 x10^-3 x 10⁸ cubic kilometres

 

The Sahara desert is about 9 x 10⁶ square km so spreading all the dredgings there would raise its level by 280 metres or 0.28 km.

Not so bad.

 

In fact a good way would be to boost the coastal margins right round the world, many are under attack.

 

Also we do not need to dig in the deepest ocean, shallower water nearer shore would do just as well.

 

But sadly we do not possess that sort of technology

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by studiot

Using the matter to bolster sea defences is an awesome idea Studiot.. Dredge out the sea beds and strengthen the shore... although as has been mentioned above it would still cause a huge amount of environmental damage to the sea floors.

We'd need a "green" way to power the equipment. Burning diesel to do it would be counter-productive in terms of climate change.

 

IF (big if, the ice caps have nearly all melted and sea level has not risen appreciably) the climatologists are correct ref a 7 metre sea level rise, it might be environmentally better to move to higher ground and abandon the lower ground, or any where built at sea level on swamps. Perhaps the white house or the houses of parliament could be put on stilts.

 

A 7 metre wall along the coastal defences might take some maintaining in hurricane areas, if it was breached another disaster could happen, it might even make an excellent point of focus for nutters to blow up.

Edited May 24, 20178 yr by Handy andy