Build More Dams To Combat Rising Sea Levels?
 

Interesting article, linked below.

Since 1930, the sea level has risen by 6-some inches. But it would have risen by 1.3 inches more, if not for all the dams and reservoirs mankind has built in the last 80 years. As few mega-dams are being built now, this offset to rising sea levels is fading.

Maybe we should build some massive new reservoirs? The lowest elevation state is LA, but would be tough to dam the entire coastline. The states on the Mississippi River (IL MO AR) and the Great Lakes (WI MI IL) are pretty low. A well-placed dam on the Mississippi might create an enormous, 1000-mile long reservoir? We might thus restrain the rise of sea levels, and preserve the beaches and coastal towns of the US - which are a lot nicer places to live anyway, aren't they?

Sacrifice a couple of fly-over states, but those of you who really want to stay could become like Kevin Costner in "Waterworld".

If not, maybe there is some weak and low-lying country we could annex and make into a gigantic reservoir? Bangladesh comes to mind. Holland is probably too small to be worth it.

If we used the reservoir to farm fish, we might kill two birds with one stone.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080313-dams-water.html

Yeah! Less agriculture, more comfortable beach houses! Sounds like a great economy booster to me. Maybe all those displaced family farmers can learn how to frame houses.

And, of course, all the former lettuce-pickers can sheetrock. But that's a no-brainer!:eek:

They blame the sea level on Global warming ...yet the hottest year (in the last 100) was in the 30's. ..Be afraid . ..be Very afraid...

and yes, won't someone think of the beach houses so smartly built at (or below) sea level?

Weren't the enviro extemists just recently advocating the removal of dams? ...for the fish and 'natral goodness' of it all?

You can flood Michigan as long as you promise not to warn me.

Long Island house ins is still getting major increases as a result of post Kitrina modeling. $500k house went from $900 to $2,700 year over year. It's not over either. More big eases next yr. Deduction different weather Cat1 or Cat3.

Fed Flood Ins, although rising, is subsidized by taxpayer's big time. Speculation is that a $1k policy could rise to $5 or $6k.. some say $10k if Flood Ins was priced by the market.

anyway..... thx guys

yeah, massive river being dammed would make your greens(tree huggers) turn to reds. They are liable to start firebombing Hummer dealerships or streets of dreams homes:rolleyes:

Interesting idea for flood control though, you could work the Mighty Mississippi just like the Panama Canal if you worked it right. You could dredge and bulldoze if you wanted to make a nice lake somewhere. Even use it to flood rice paddies like they do; or did anyway, I think they are putting a lot of houses where they used to grow rice, which is a bad idea. Good place to grow rice is someplace easy to flood.

Interesting concept. And think about it..hydroelectric is the least expensive power out there... So, let's tap the energy???

I call BS on that figure.

Estimating 30000 dams (their figure) with a volume of 45000 cubic yards (an overestimation since this is the 35th largest dam in the world http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001334.html) will have a volume of 6.3*10^15 cubic inches.

Assuming the earth is covered in 71% ocean to raise the sea 1.3 inches it would take 7.3*10^17 inches.

This means that with my wild overestimation of the quantity of water behind dams the ocean would rise 0.0005 inches.

I dont care to show my work. I am a physicist damn it (I am beyond that and if I did it would show the many probable algebra errors)

Oh if you think my one estimation is wrong if we take all of the dams to be the size of three gorges (more than 50 times the size of the next biggest dam) it will still only raise the sea level by 0.09 inches.

Not even ball park.

Stick to topless Africans Nat Geo.

Hey, You . . with the math, science and logic. NO FAIR! That type of crazy talk has no place in a discussion this important. :D

HaHa.

Why are scientists the biggest skeptics of global warming?

Al Gore made a hell of a lot of money winning his peace prize. (Why did he win that thing again? The kyoto treaty was the biggest joke since who knows when) Seems that the politicians and whackjobs have some money to make with carbon credits et al. Driving that Prius really helps when you have a private jet too.

What's pretty funny is that the founder of the Weather Channel is suing Al Gore:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,337710,00.html

"The more you cloud that up with other baloney, the weaker the product," he said. --looks like e has a good argument for damages.

how is damming a river going to keep back the ice pack on the poles that is melting when there are no rivers feed by said polar ice pack? how do you dam something that is already in contact with the sea. isnt the melting ice pack what is making the sea levels rise, not the seasonal snow melt on a continent. i bet the people in the southern US could use some of this supposed extra dammed water.

i am slowly starting to see the error in all these global warming solutions.

Maybe because all surface water evaporates and comes back as rain and rain feeds rivers?

Pin drop for ya?

I don't know about algebra errors, but one error is you are using the "volume" of the dam itself, not of the water in the reservoir created behind the dam.

You can check this - the Three Gorges dam, #1 on the list you linked, has a volume of appx 36 million cubic meters to 39 million cubic meters (sources vary) - which you can quickly check since the dam itself is 2310 meters long, 185 meters high, and thickness from 115 meters base to 40 meters top. The source you used, which says the Three Gorges dam is a volume of 39,300,000 cubic meters, is thus referring to the dam volume, not the reservoir volume. The reservoir volume is reportedly appx 9 cubic miles volume, appx 5.5 billion cubic meters.

So your calculations are off by a bit more than a bit.

Knee-jerk, no thinking.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/lol2.gif
best watch that kinda jive, people will be calling you a ditto head

wow, 39,000,000 cubic meters, that is a lot of of golf courses

I think the article's number makes sense, actually.

2600 cubic miles of water in 30,000 reservoirs (claims the study).

2600 / 30000 = 0.086 cubic miles per reservoir.
Which could be a reservoir 0.5 mile long, 2.0 mile long, 0.086 mile (458 feet) deep.
Doesn't sound like a huge reservoir at all.

Effect of 2600 cubic miles of water?

Earth radius 3963 miles, so Earth surface area 197.4 million square miles ( 4 * pi * 3963 ^ 2) and area covered by water 140.1 million square miles assuming 71% covered (physicist's number).

So an extra 2600 cubic miles of water raises sea level by 1.176 inch = 2600 / 140.1x10^6 mile * 63360 inch/mile.

The remaining 0.12 inch is presumably the additional groundwater under the reservoirs, also mentioned in the article.

Silly John! Math is no defense against emotion. In fact, I suspect math is liberal.