About Global warming?

I think the answer is easy.

1.) Wahtever depth the sea will rise , dig that depth out of the sea floor

2.) Let all the big armies show off their missles to dig that hole

3.) Purify salt water so its clean, and spray it on the desert

4.) why dont we design a way so we can live underwater instead of space

does anyone agree ??

Answer:
You forgot using genetic engineering so that we all grow gills so we can breath underwater.
To tell you the truth... 100%, you know, those aren't bad ideas
you have some childlike ideas, and thats what will help us in the end. i really like the way you think. it just doesnt seem that simple.
I certainly agree with the lving under water that would be great
Actually, yeay I completely agree with you, not too bad at all!
sure ... these are the things the richest 10% of the world will do


... you think they are gonna save a spot in the underwater city for you? ... :P
haha..
umm..
yeah, no.
that's too simple.
and not possible.
nice try.
"global warming" is stupid; i really wouldn't worry about it. your plan is just as good as any though (but that isn't saying much)
underwater instead of space? how long can you hold your breath for? the average human about 30 seconds of less. unless you use underwater diving gear then for a few hours or less. number one is impossible and doens't make sense, the dig depth part. about number 2, it only takes 22 nuclear rockets to destroy the whole world, if 75% of the globe is filled with water guess how many rockets you would need to make a big whole and would destroy the earth before your global warming solutions. number 3, if you can do it ala kazaam.
I do and i don't. I mean if it becomes that complex about global warming then i think that we should adapt to live in water. It would be nice. But to fantasy.
But the problem is. Whether we like it or not the sun is going to engulf Earth anyway. If we've got any chance then it's in space not living in a world thats going to die anyway.

Just think about it. We spend most of the money building undersea cities where just waisting our time. Whats the point in waisting money when the worlds going to end anyway in about a billion years time or so. I think there doing a better job with spending money on working on space. And they should stick it at that.
well that is an interesting idea. At my elementry school I also and a whole bunch of other people studied Global warming. I know that in 30-40 years alot of places will be flooded. i know. 1) Its immposible to dig into the sea floor. yes there might be a way in the future. but if something goes in the sea floor the weight of depth will collapse on it. 2) I dont get the missle part though and digging. 3)Its a good idea about the desert but the habitat and the way of living for all the animals there and people will change. 4) like i said in 30-40 years the world will be partialy flooded no matter what unless we change our life styles and try better thigns to help our world. 1 person can make a difference. and if we do live undersea we'll be on top soon because of the flood.
Nope, is living in a bubble really living?
Very interesting.

1/2. How much energy do you think it will take to remove that depth from the sea floor? If you consider the Atlantic Ocean alone, and the rise to be only one foot, you will have to remove 4 billion pounds of soil. Not very practical.

3. We already purify salt water for drinking water in parts of the Middle East. But, it takes a lot of energy to do it. But, this is still a good idea for drinking water . I just wouldn't waste it by spraying on the desert.

4. We can already do that. But, again, it takes energy. Besides, there are really no plans for us to have large quantities of people living in space.
The problem is one of scale. If all the ice on the planet melted (it won't but assuming it did) then sea levels would rise by 80.34 metres (260 feet). To scoop this much material from the sea floor would mean removing in the order of 51 quadrillion tons of material - that's about the same as 8 million tons for every person on the planet, something that's not at all possible. The excavated material would need to be deposited on land and this would mean burying the entire land mass of the Earth's surface under 240 metres (780 feet) of material.

2) If every explosive device on the planet were detonated on the sea bed the result would be one big bang, a lot of waves (damaging in themselves) and the movement of material from one part of the sea bed to another. This wouldn't reduce sea levels, it would actually increase them as the pressure exerted by the seas and oceans on the sea bed compresses the material there. If it were to be exploded it would be less compressed and so occupy a larger volume thus displacing a greater amount of sea water than was needed to fill the resulting hole.

3) Desalination is a possibility and is practiced on a commercial scale in some parts of the world - notably some of the oil states in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia. It's a very expensive process and to up the scale to that needed to water the deserts would be prohibitively expensive. There's also a distinct lack of soil in many desert regions so no amount of water is going to produce land suitable for habitation or cultivation.

4) To an extent we can already live underwater. Submarines are self contained units which produce their own air and water but not their own food. Sunlight is needed to grow most foods so even if we had some sort of underwater colony much of the growing of crops etc would have to be done on land. The possibility of living in space is also a long way off - at least on a sizeable scale it is. Whilst we could have small numbers of people living in space or underwater the vast majority of people would have to live on land and would also have to produce the materials and food needed to sustain the colonies in space or underwater.
Trevor is right about the scale. And one thing noone talks about is what such shifts would do the planet's rotation and revolution. Redistributing the weight on a spinning top will affect the way it spins and the paths it pursues while it spins. I remember hearing in general physical science that this old ball wobbles already. The problem may be more extensive than so far described by anyone.
1.) In some of the places that they may have to dig in order to have a hole to fill up the excess water there may be sediment on the ocean floor. If they happen to be working in an area where there is loose sediment there would be some problems with that. Once they dig up one bucket of it; more sediment would just fall right back into the hole. Thus, filling it back up again. Plus, contaminates have be found in the many of the oceans. There would be a problem of what to do with it.

2.) The problem with using missiles to blast a hole big enough; is that it could endanger the aquatic life on the ocean floor, as well in the oceans their selves. And it depends on where they go about blasting a hole. If they do it near a volcanic area; again it could cause a disturbance in the life under water.

3.) Purifying all that water may be too costly. Too much a one time; may upset the environmental balance in the desert.

4.) Some people may not feel too comfortable with just a thick pane of glass keeping the ocean water from flooding into their homes. To build such an aquarium type house, would run into the millions of dollars. Which many people do not have. And once a house was build; it would still cost a lot of money to keep it maintained.


Those are not bad ideals. As with any ideal there are always obstacles that will have to be over come. That is to say, it is not they cannot be done; rather it will take a lot of money, careful planning, and time to make it all work.
That is the beat idea but no scientist have that idea
1.) Wow! that's a big hole. I think that would be unacheveable

2.) If you leave it to them they will dig holes with nukes. Not good!

3.) If you spray water on the desert the desert will change color. Sand does that when its wet. From a light color to a darker color.
If the deserts were a darker color they would absorb more light from the sun and increase Global Warming.
OOPS!

4.) We have never been completely successful living underwater or in space.
Our oceans are dying. going there and adding to the damage is (in my opinion) not the answer.

Space is vast, almost limitless. If going elsewhere is the answer, let's try Mars. It's close enough and if we really chose to we could be there in the next 100 years.
PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN TO WALK AND NOT BE A WUSS CARRING GROCERIES
Totally agree, never heard so much bullsh*t in my life. How can anybody know about the earth, its 3-4 BILLION years old at best guess. Im sure its been a lot hotter and a lot colder. JUST ANOTHER EXCUSE TO TAX USE AND MAKE AS MUCH MONEY AS POSS OUT OF THE OIL SUPPLIES,- SELL A LITTLE, GET A LOT.

The answers post by the user, for information only, FunQA.com does not guarantee the right.



More Questions and Answers:
  • What can we do to help stop global warming?
  • How can the swindle video be recommended, after it's been proven to be wrong?
  • What other kinds of things can you get money back on recycling?
  • What is a peristyle court?
  • What contributes more to global warming, cow farts or cars?
  • Global Warming?
  • What is current lenght of power transmission lines in india?
  • Cool in summer and warm in winter?
  • Which of these is the worse, Global Warming or Global Cooling?