Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 September 28

= September 28 =

Flooding the Dead Sea (For the Planet!)
I'd like to preface this question by saying that I realise it's a terrible idea, for many, many reasons, not least because of the horrible human and political consequences and the general unfeasibility. But, also I'm quite curious and not really in a position to do it anyway.

Global sea levels are rising, which is widely recognised as a very bad thing. Meanwhile the Dead Sea is about 700 meters below sea level and falling rather fast. Also a very bad thing.

If one was to divert sea water into the Dead Sea, either by tunnel(s) or a very big canal, could global sea levels be reduced? Such a system could be used to "top up" the Dead Sea I suppose, or to dispose of excess sea water by evaporation?. But also the Dead Sea and Jordan valley form a basin over 150 miles long and very deep. What if it was equalised with sea level?

It's a terrible idea, but could this form of "counter flooding" theoretically be used to combat the rise of global sea levels? Would it make any impact? Are there any advantages in diverting sea water into an endorheic system like that?

2.27.129.45 (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Maybe this ought to be in RD/Science? —Tamfang (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not even theoretically possible using the Dead Sea. Its surface area is only 605 km², down from 1,050 km² in 1930, and the whole catchment basin is only 41,650 km² — compared with about 360,000,000 km² in the oceans.  Even if you had the whole area of 41,650 km² to fill, lowering the world's ocean levels by just 1 meter, you would need to put 360,000,000/41,650 = over 8,600 meters depth of water in there — about the height of Mt. Everest.  Now, if you were willing to destroy everything around the Caspian Sea, which is quite a bit larger, that might be another matter... --76.69.116.4 (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in the Zanclean flood, "a flood theorized to have refilled the Mediterranean Sea 5.33 million years ago". That would have had a noticeable effect of the global sea level. SinisterLefty (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What is the volume of the Mediterranean compared with the volume of all the oceans in the world? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the linked articles, the oceans have 360 times the volume: 3,750,000 km³ for the Med vs. 1,350,000,000 km³ for all the oceans. The sea-level drop would have been about 3,750,000 km³ / 360,000,000 km² (see my previous item), or 10 meters. If there'd been people building port facilities around the world then the way there are now, an awful lot of them would have been screwed! --76.69.116.4 (talk) 07:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The Med Sea wasn't completely empty then, so the drop in ocean levels would be slightly less. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * See Atlantropa for a proposed opposite move. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, something like this is currently being developed by Jordan with support from Israel - see Red Sea–Dead Sea Water Conveyance (a modification of the earlier proposal of a Mediterranean–Dead Sea Canal). The reasons are manyfold. It would be a major source of hydroelectricity, it would counteract the drying up of the Dead Sea, which causes major environmental problems, and, combined with desalination plants, it could provide plenty of fresh water for various purposes. Raising the level of the Dead Sea to the global mean sea level is not planned, and would be counterproductive for energy production. As stated above, the effect on global sea levels would be negligible. There are probably expected and unexpected environmental effects, but the overall estimate is that it will be a net positive. I think that everything that reduces the pressure on water resources in the Near East is probably going to pay for itself in reduced military conflict in the long run. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:59, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Where will the water go? It doesn't just disappear. Instead, it evaporates, enters the water cycle, and comes back down as rain. If your plan is put into large-scale use, then it will increase atmospheric humidity, and increase rainfall. This is likely to disturb weather patterns. LongHairedFop (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)


 * There's lots of desert areas around the Dead Sea, so increasing humidity and rain would be a good thing for human habitation and agriculture. Maybe bad for camels. If you're saying most of the water in the Dead Sea would evaporate and come back down as rain in the oceans, yes, that would eventually happen, if the two were disconnected and you waited thousands of years. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Kati Thanda–Lake Eyre in northern South Australia is a generally dry salt lake just 15 m below sea level. It fills occasionally, such as right now, covering up to 9,500 km2 (3,668 sq mi) and becoming the largest lake in Australia, but meteorological studies suggest that this has a negligible effect on the climate anywhere around it. This is despite some politicians over the years suggesting using a series of atom bombs to dig a channel from the ocean to permanently fill it. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The Salton Sea is a somewhat similar situation in California. Unfortunately, some people were foolish enough to move there, thinking it was a stable body of water (Bombay Beach, Salton City). SinisterLefty (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Do seniors or middle aged athletes ever do Rhythmic gymnastics in special Olympics
I'm 35 and I'm wondering if over 40 is too old. 50.68.237.196 (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Check the ages of the participants and that should tell you. A key factor in gymnastics is flexibility, which tends to erode as we get older. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)