You are not logged in.
Perhaps you might store more than one meter per year given artificial refrigeration under sheet of solar power panels + isolation...
I think the limit is determined by the ability to radiate heat from top of Antarctica to space. Heat from ocean water at 273 K radiated at what effective temperature ? Piping Hydrogen to top of Antarctica, Stirling power generation and cooling. Maybe mechanical equivalent of Jacob's ladder, or tidal powered water hammer ?
BTW, what`s the most efficient solution, i.e. maximization of the new land gain times the water column displacement? There shoulda be solution minimizing the water removal vs. maximizing the territorial gain...
Most gain in the beginning and near bottom elevations. Low slope means most gain. Will plot this, a bathtub curve.
I also noticed, cause after the continental shelf and slope, the decrease of the depth, gives less and less, marginal land profit, cause the increase of the depth goes too steep... Perhaps the truth is close to these 100 to 300 meters... This also avoids the problem with traditional low lands suddenly elevated to over 1000 meters altitude... Holland and Bangladesh turn into Swiss...
Slopes would change over geological time. But heights would remain relative.
Highest would still remain highest, same for lowest. Something like the tide lifting all boats.
--------------------------------------------------------------
One elevation that I like is -4,000 meter:
http://www.geocities.com/marscatdog/4000.gif
Earth would need more atmosphere, and higher elevations would become cooler.
Offline
Perhaps you might store more than one meter per year given artificial refrigeration under sheet of solar power panels + isolation...
I think the limit is determined by the ability to radiate heat from top of Antarctica to space. Heat from ocean water at 273 K radiated at what effective temperature ? Piping Hydrogen to top of Antarctica, Stirling power generation and cooling. Maybe mechanical equivalent of Jacob's ladder, or tidal powered water hammer ?
I think forced cooling powered by photovoltaics over the insultaing blanket of the water/ice reservoir... Combination of passive and active cooling. Antarctica is high, with the new ice even higher so pointed MW or IR beams going to the space will add very little heat in the rarified air-cover on Antarctica... Imagine peltier cooling, laser cooling, etc...
BTW, what`s the most efficient solution, i.e. maximization of the new land gain times the water column displacement? There shoulda be solution minimizing the water removal vs. maximizing the territorial gain...
Most gain in the beginning and near bottom elevations. Low slope means most gain. Will plot this, a bathtub curve. /
Yes, there should be some minimaxization solution. Intutition from the very begining told us that the continental sploe boundary is the best -- you replace only ~300 meters, but still gain 7-8% land!?
I also noticed, cause after the continental shelf and slope, the decrease of the depth, gives less and less, marginal land profit, cause the increase of the depth goes too steep... Perhaps the truth is close to these 100 to 300 meters... This also avoids the problem with traditional low lands suddenly elevated to over 1000 meters altitude... Holland and Bangladesh turn into Swiss...
Slopes would change over geological time. But heights would remain relative.
Highest would still remain highest, same for lowest. Something like the tide lifting all boats.Yes. The weathering and the water erosoin would make the new exposed coastline less steeper with the next millenias, my point is that now very comfortable places will turn into highmopuntain places in terms of air density and pressure... Going deeper than several hundreds of meters we`d begin to loose land turned from Swiss to Everest... We either must add air, or to undermine the mountain roots making the elevations shallower...
I think the best oportunity is to balance perfectly the amount of the water stored on/into Antartcica in order neither some old lands to be sdend too higher, nore the air pressure to become uncomfortable, nore too much water displaced to open too less new land... Marginal lang gains means that we could even start to lose in absolute terms in amount of really habitable land if we are going deeper and deeper beyond perhaps 500 meters...
There shoulda exist some mathematical method for calculating the optimum. MarsDog - I`m sure you know it. Unfortunatelly I`m not a matemathician or comp-man... Is my wildguess about L-300 ( level minus 300 meters ) the exact solution for minimum water displacement + max. land gain???
--------------------------------------------------------------One elevation that I like is -4,000 meter:
http://www.geocities.com/marscatdog/4000.gifEarth would need more atmosphere, and higher elevations would become cooler.
[b]I like it too. We perhaps should store ice over Arctica too. That means complete plumbing of the hydrosphere... Imagine giant alive "vascular" system distributing via fractal network of underground and overground pipes all the water and heat in order to provide the Heavenly climate and weather to every spot on Earth.[/b]
Offline
Yes, there should be some minimaxization solution. Intutition from the very begining told us that the continental sploe boundary is the best -- you replace only ~300 meters, but still gain 7-8% land!?
Most gain is in the beginning; In the first few meters.
Then around 4,000 meters, when the bottom flattens.
Even at low slopes, at greater depth, you still have to remove all the water above.
I like it too. We perhaps should store ice over Arctica too. That means complete plumbing of the hydrosphere... Imagine giant alive "vascular" system distributing via fractal network of underground and overground pipes all the water and heat in order to provide the Heavenly climate and weather to every spot on Earth.
have placed other elevations online
http://www.geocities.com/marscatdog/
Offline
There should be some differential equation, which shows the optimization of the task in terms of depth / recovered dry land... but I can`t comopose it, it was long time since I studied maths ...
Offline
Did a plot at bottom of page for area per 100 meter changes in depth:
http://www.geocities.com/marscatdog/
There is a peak at 4,200 meters, hitting large areas of ocean bottom.
Summing area times each depth is numerically integrating, to give volume.
You gain a lot of land first 100 meters, 22,100,000 km^2 or 4.3% imcrease in land area,
then only 1/4 as more the next 100 meters.
==========================================
The page takes too long to load
will reduce some of the diagrams later.
I changed the program to calculate WGS 84 ellipsoid,
but little difference from simpler spherical model.
Interesting that some experts want to abandon the WGS 84 altogether.
Offline
Did a plot at bottom of page for area per 100 meter changes in depth:
http://www.geocities.com/marscatdog/There is a peak at 4,200 meters, hitting large areas of ocean bottom.
Summing area times each depth is numerically integrating, to give volume.
You gain a lot of land first 100 meters, 22,100,000 km^2 or 4.3% imcrease in land area,
then only 1/4 as more the next 100 meters.==========================================
The page takes too long to load
will reduce some of the diagrams later.I changed the program to calculate WGS 84 ellipsoid,
but little difference from simpler spherical model.Interesting that some experts want to abandon the WGS 84 altogether.
Regarding the fact that one shoulda remove most of the oceans to reach the peak of 4200 meters, indeed it comes out that the optimum is s.w. about several hundred meters. I mean the ration - area gain / volume water displaced...
Offline
