I’ve read that hundreds of millions of gallons of water from non-renewable underground sources is used every year in the US, and if I understand things correctly, after going through a sewage treatment plant, that water ends up in a river, which means it ends up in the ocean. This brings to mind some questions:
How much of the rise in sea level could be attributed to aquifer water being sent to the ocean?
Related: How many gallons of water equals an inch in sea level?
With aquifers and underground rivers drying up, do we have the capablitly to filter ocean water to replace this diminishing source? (you know, if a cabal of capable people were to figure out the logistics of piping it to every municipality in the country)
Using California since it’s the most populous state: If California were to switch to filtering ocean water, would it have a global impact on carbononic acidity in the ocean, or would it just be a local effect?
The questions jump all over the place, and I apologize for not having cites, but my curiosity burns.
(1), (2)
Google is your friend:
“total water surface area of earth” → 361800000 sq km
“(361132000 sq km * 1 inch) to gallons” → 2.42766719 × 10[sup]15[/sup] US gallons
Similarly, Google “water lost annually from aquifiers in Africa” and then
“10 billion cubic meters to gallons” → 2.64172052 × 10[sup]12[/sup] US gallons
to see that, “all other things being equal” ( :dubious: ) aquifer losses just from Africa would raise the oceans 1 inch after about 900 years.
(3) Do “we” have the capability? Short answer: Yes, if “we” are a sufficiently rich country.
(4) Any CO[sub]2[/sub] would end up in ocean or air, and in either case tend to return to equilibrium.
(As seen, man’s activities often don’t have as much direct effect as you might expect. AGW is an exception because it involves the irreversible chemical reaction C+O[sub]2[/sub] → CO[sub]2[/sub] .)
For comparison, here is a paper that says 6% of sea level rise since 1900 is due to groundwater withdrawal, thus since 1930 the balance is about a 25% reduction in global sea level rise (the contribution of both is greatest in recent years, though dam building is slowing).
My bad, for question 3), I’m talking about just filtering the carbon and removing it from the environment, like making those bricks or something.
And wow, I was definitely expecting a lot less water per inch than you and beowulff have told me. Naive, I suppose.
So what about me hearing about how under ground aquifers are supposed to be drying up before this century is over? Is there a less expensive means to avert crisis being planned than pumping ocean water? Dam water couldn’t be much a solution could it, since that’s needed for producing electricity?
some interesting things i found while googling this…
“About 10.4 percent of the world’s land surface, or approximately 6,020,000 square miles (15,600,000 square kilometers), is glaciated. Glaciated means permanently covered with ice. That ice takes the form of glaciers, ice sheets, or ice caps.” Source
“If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet)…At the other end of the world, the North Pole, the ice is not nearly as thick as at the South Pole. The ice floats on the Arctic Ocean. If it melted sea levels would not be affected.” Source
“The Antarctic ice sheet covers about 98% of the Antarctic continent and at 27 million cubic km” Source
" The Australian-led study expects geological processes over the next 80 million years to continue deepening ocean basins, dropping sea levels."Source
-Another article on the subject here.
It was an interesting topic to research, I’m not very worried about it myself. Not in terms of flooding coastal cities and such.