How effective would man-made oceans be on preventing the global catastrophe of climate change?

Hey! All but one are in California. You trying to tell us something? I suppose next you are going to cut your channels with a series of relative small nuclear devices?

Without the least consideration for the value of the thought, it will not happen unless the politicians can figure out how to make rich people richer doing it... That and getting elected is their sole reason for being...

That almost happened in Alaska and we have a few thousand nukes lying around with no one to bomb so why not put them to good use? Sorry California, this experiment is just too fun to consider your feelings.

All things being equal ... even if the theory of man made seas were proven to help the world in such a grand scale, you are undoubtedly correct. This project will never take flight unless it profited the uber rich.

Heck even if it was proven that it would cause the end of man as a species, I bet the project would go through if it brought massive profits to a handful of very wealthy business tycoons. Pathetic how our system works.

The establishment of exclusive resorts along the new shorline and a monopoly aquaculture (seafood) business might fit the bill.
Success of course would mean a ready access to wealthy clients. So... that rules out Africa and Australia. Leaving us with The Middle east, US or Europe.
Europe's below sea level areas are marginal by depth.
USA or Middle east.
Middle east (the dead sea area) is the deepest but there are more consumers within easy reach in the US.
As money is the driving factor I'd go with flooding Califonia.

By population densities and developed land, Europe and coastal Asia wouldn't make a great target for these monstrous man made seas.

In terms of hubris? This project would be ideal for the oil wealthy Middle East. They crazy enough to try this project even if it causes more problems then it could fix. They'd do it simply to appease their monstrous sized egos.

But the issue isn't depth. It is surface area.

I suppose reflective properties might somewhat offset the consequences of more water vapor.

well if we are talking about harboring life, depth would be important; there are gradients in niche of species which are depth/temperature specific, right?

what is the consequence of more water vapor? and what does the reflective property do for that?

are you saying the vapors will make the area more hot, but the reflecting of sunlight will keep it cool......??

the "more water vapor" is exactly the reason why the temperature even goes down; the high specific heat of water soaks up a lot of the sun's heat before it is agitated enough to become vapor, taking away the heat from bottom of earth to the skies...

if you meant something else, sorry for making faulty interpretations about your comment.

-55hikky

Seem like a hard way of going about changing the climate to me.

Lot of others means had been suggested that all are a few orders of magnitude less hard to do.

Well I do believe it can also help with the global problem of clean water supplies for the third world as well as a potential great source for food to help alleviate any massive scale food shortages.

Increased water vapor is not related to reflectivity in any way. That's the point. On the one hand, we greatly increase a strong greenhouse gas. On the other, we increase albido at the surface. Furthermore, the albido effect would also be enhanced since water vapor forms clouds under certain circumstances.

Are you sure depth is that important? I don't know, but only plant life is going to be significantly in effecting a change in oxygen and co2.

Un huh. Evaporation soaks up some 540 calories per gram at change of state. We may see cooling, but not actual reduction in heat. Whatever, the evaporation you like occurs at the surface, so large shallow oceans should produce more bang per cubic mile of ocean.

Please don't worry about faulty interpretations of any comments of my own. We're all taking this about as seriously as bombing out a channel from the Pacific to Death Valley.

I'm not seeing the clean water supplies. We will be filling the new oceans from existing salty, salty oceans, aren't we?

Where are you planning on getting all this fresh water?

Desalinization plants

All we would need to do is generate 10,000 times more power then we do now worldwide to run those plants.

Oh and find a way of getting rid of all the heat cause by all those power plants.

Party pooper!

My middle name however there are ways we could cool the earth using technology means within reach.

I vote for photovoltaic panels. They're black and soak up lots of heat. In fact, I think I'll short salt futures. We are going to have lots of salt.

And as soon as you used that solar power you go right back to heat.

Yeah, that too. Well, so does power from coal, for that matter, but if there's a free lunch, we're still looking.