Hauling icebergs to Africa.

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20180918-the-outrageous-plan-to-haul-icebergs-to-africa

Something different for a change.

If towing icebergs to hot, water-stressed regions sounds totally crazy to you, then consider this: the volume of water that breaks off Antarctica as icebergs each year is greater than the total global consumption of freshwater. And that stat doesn’t even include Arctic ice. This is pure freshwater, effectively wasted as it melts into the sea and contributes to rising sea levels. Does it sound less crazy now?

This untapped flow of water has enticed scientists and entrepreneurs for over a century.There were 19th-Century schemes to deliver by steam-boat to India, and to supply breweries in Chile. In the 1940s, John Isaacs of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute proposed towing an iceberg to San Diego to quench a Californian drought. In the 1970s, Saudi Prince Mohamed Al-Faisal wanted to tow an Antarctic iceberg across the equator to Saudi Arabia, and funded two international conferences on the subject. The EU received proposals in the 2010s to tow an iceberg from Newfoundland to the Canary Islands.

So they're practically mining for fresh water.

I guess it's better than just having it melt and spill into other oceans.

Well, it's not the craziest idea.

Maybe next we can start sending our garbage into space to deal with the landfill problems.

Water that we do not drink is not "wasted," it is part of an ecosystem that operates almost as its own organism. Even if I can't think of any massive problems right now, that doesn't mean removing a large part of that ecosystem won't have adverse consequences down the road. Not to mention, this still doesn't solve the problem of disappearing sea ice. Polar ice is more reflective than ocean water and the more it disappears, even if we use it for drinking rather than it contributing to rising sea levels, the more heat is absorbed by the Earth's oceans. Furthermore, salinity lowers the freezing temperature, meaning that having more freshwater in melting areas could be better than hauling it away as it will assist the ice in re-freezing and accumulating. Not to even mention, where is this water going to go after we drink it? It has to re-enter the environment somehow, and if you're just sticking it back into an environment where water is contaminated then you're not solving the problem, you're just adding more water to it. Finally, how much water can we realistically use like this? Enough to halt sea level rise? I'm not so sure of that. It takes a massive amount of water to raise the volume of the Earth's ENTIRE oceans a few feet, I don't know that we could realistically drink enough water to offset that. Maybe if we could magically teleport water to every region with water insecurity, but I'm assuming it's mostly going to go to coastal areas. Remember, transporting water takes money, energy, and fossil fuels. If we're airlifting water into central Africa but increasing emissions tenfold to do it then how much is this really going to help us?

So you're disagreeing with scientists?

for a moment i thought of this with the iceberg

Or just recycle it... And perhaps not create so much waste to begin with.

Unless some countries recycle all the sewage, the water from this ice will hit the sea next time you go to the toilet... Or let any water down the pipes and out from your house/apartment.

not a political subject

Climate change is a political subject.

well yes..(I dont think it should but it is)

but this story is not about the question of climate change specifically now is it?

the story would have to assume it (climate change) is already an undisputed topic

It's related to climate change. Go buzz in someone elses ear, bye now :)

ok fair enough, not worth arguing over

It might not hit the sea, but it has to go somewhere. That could be a body of freshwater, like a river or lake, but like I said before, if those sources are already contaminated then how much good is that going to do? It could be a man-made reservoir, but that would be a massive undertaking, and I think it would be susceptible to a lot of the issues that are contributing to contaminated water in natural water sources. Actually, lack of a functional sewage system is one of the bigger issues with water in certain parts of Africa, so just the idea that this water is going to be treated before it is put back into the ecosystem is not a given. And, if the water gets released into a river that flows to the sea, then you're right that it'll just go back anyway, not really offsetting the problem of sea level rise.

That somewhere is the sea. Man made reservoir? Unless it is sealed in, it will evaporate and hit the sea that way. There is no realistic way it won't hit the sea.

True, but how much of it and at what rate could vary. A river that flows into the sea, for example, is going to deposit water there at a faster rate than water evaporating from an inland lake and making its way to the sea via rainfall. Seawater also evaporates and makes its way to land, just ask people in North Carolina, so it's not like all water is going to make its way back to the sea and just stay there. It might be enough to offset sea level rise, assuming everything else goes fine, but there are so many variables involved just in figuring that out. This is my problem with any sort of geo-engineering proposal, is that there are so many variables involved and if any one is miscalculated it could have a large negative impact.

Also, I don't get why climate change deniers are so opposed to extremely simple solutions like a carbon tax, but towing icebergs across the world? Sign them up!

@n64dd: scientists are humans, and although they are trying to get to the truth, alot of times information can be manipulated. It's called conflicts of interest due to profit motives, which is why papers funded by industry are big time scams and need to be looked through twice or three times. For the most part, industry funded papers aren't even peer reviewed, which is the gold standard in publishing. These shady papers are then used to convince illiterate politicians for some side benefit. Trust me, this is not a conspiracy theory, it's common sense general practice happening in Washington on a daily basis. There isn't as much focus on these shady tactics because the public for the most part know about this but just don't care. As long as there's doubt people will live naive lives.

Bottom line, scientists can be used as tools to spread misinformation. You just need to look for profit motive, conflicts of interest and peer review status. These three things will tell you what you really need to know about an article, whether it's trash can material or not.

These ice berg scientists we're probably funded by some industry with influence over government. There is definitely a profit motive, conflicts of interest and non existent peer review. Trash can material.

And how large hole do you expect people to create? That landmass moved to create the reservoir has to go somewhere.

That is exactly how I felt about Bill Nye's Netflix show, except it significantly less scientific content.

Their's a James Bond plot in there somewhere.

Climate change is the reason for their drought.

It's also the reason for ice bergs melting.

@comp_atkins said:

YES!

This is what popped into my mind as well.

its like you didnt even read the words I wrote

@Fuhrer_D: except Bill Nyes Netflix show was based on solid peer reviewed science. At least his episode on climate change has very solid peer review status behind it. Like I said, in terms of science peer review is the gold standard. Regardless of profit motives and conflicts of interest, peer review is really the end of the line deciding factor.

If you can point out any specific episode where he's peddling pseudo science, then we can talk.

The real question is why are we wasting it on Africa?

Harvesting icebergs would increase the rate of oceanic rise, so it probably shouldn't be done. Hopefully somebody discovers a cheap way to desalinate water soon. Otherwise, the world is going to have to start investing in large scale water transfers from wet river systems to dry regions. We just won't have enough affordable food if we can't continue farming arid regions that are running out of water.

That was pretty much the only episode that had solid science behind it, the rest (for what its worth, the rest I made it through) garbage, agenda pushing, dollar capitalizing nonsense. There is an actual word for this, but I can't remember it at the moment.

Because when you've stolen and destroyed everything, sometimes you have to throw the people a bone.

@blaznwiipspman1 I remembered the word, Lysenkoism.

Unless you have some kind of super efficient mass driver that's not going to work. Recycling is more pragmatic.

@Fuhrer_D:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World#Episodes

Episode 2 is about debunking alternative medicines

Episode 3 is artificial intelligence.

Episode 4 is GMO

Episode 6 is vaccinations

Etc etc...I mean this isn't even political stuff, just basic science backed topics. I'm just sitting here wondering what you're even talking about. Painting bill Nye as a deranged loony....but honestly I don't get it.