From: CurtAdams@aol.com
Date: Mon Jul 02 2001 - 10:15:14 MDT
In a message dated 7/1/01 11:38:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
bradbury@aeiveos.com writes:
> > CurtAdams@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > Technically it's doable but you would have to pay
> > > Russia, Azerbaijan, and Khazakstan astronomical
> > > sums of money to justify flooding so much of their land.
>
> Actually if you gave them fresh water they might let you
> do it for nothing. By that time they will have drained
> the Sea of Aral dry.
The Sea of Aral is well separated from the Caspian and only
around sea level, IIRC. You don't prevent much flooding by
refilling the Aral Sea. The locals would much prefer it, of
course. The Sovs considered this and backed off due to
cost and concerns about climatological effects on the Arctic.
If the greenhouse really takes hold the latter concern matters
far less and refilling the Aral looks better. It won't save Venice,
though.
>For an optimal situation I think you actually want to increase CO2 emissions
>right up to the point where very advanced biotech or nanotech can
>reverse it. The more carbon you put into the atmosphere the greater
>the "sunk cost" benefit you have during the nanotech transition.
I don't get that. First, I doubt carbon will be the limiting material; I
anticipate it will continue to be nitrogen and phosphorus; if nanotech
requires only a tiny portion to be 3-bond atoms they continue to
be limiting. More to the point, it's way easier to use coal and oil
for carbon than to extract it from the atmosphere at 1%. Burning
fossil fuel makes the carbon far less available.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:25 MST