GIF based on K.C. Green's Gunshow comic #648, actually titled "The Pills Are Working" or "On Fire."
I’m sorry for not knowing/citing whoever made the GIF.

During my teens, I was captivated with everything Carl Sagan. In 1985, he discussed the greenhouse effect and global climate systems, and to this day, Sagan’s remain largely unchallenged. Yet, the discourse around climate change has evolved, suggesting it's time for an opportunistic reevaluation.

Growing up in Florida, I was surrounded by conservatives and libertarians. They cast doubt if climate change was even an issue worth our efforts. Critics cited poor data in studies that I did not care to read. They’d say, “The scientists are incentivized to be alarmists. That’s how they get funding.” Other critics cited the semantic shifts—from “Global Cooling” to “Global Warming” to “Climate Change.” Some said that media sensationalizes science (and it does). Critics also pointed at the geological epochs, such as the Ice Age. They argued, “We live in Holocene. Expect more heat!”

Many cited conspiracies and nonsense as well.

My philosophy-oriented mindset led me to a stance of uncertainty in the face of complex data. I mean, have you collected and analyzed climate data yourself? I’m not qualified for such things.

Today, the consensus among scientists that human activity has significantly contributed to climate change has led me to blidnly trust their judgment. Recognizing science's foundation in hypotheses (really evidence-based theories and models) rather than absolute truths, I value perspectives of both 'alarmists' and 'deniers'.

Instead of fixating on whether to align with alarmism or denial, I find myself asking, "What would Sagan do?" Something tells me Sagan would ask, “What can we do to prevent this? What should we do to prevent this?” And most importantly, what can we do to make the most of this?” He would likely focus on actionable solutions and opportunities arising from our current predicament.

If we can all agree that man is causing climate change, even if we don’t really know, and we can all agree that mass death is bad for the economy, we can move onto solutions. This brings me to geoengineering—an underfunded yet potentially transformative field offering solutions ranging from infrastructure improvements to agricultural enhancements and disaster mitigation. Geoengineering can turn climate change into a good thing.

There is one particularly audacious, dumb, silly and somehow serious geoengineering proposal I keep coming back to, “Why don’t we just take the ocean water, and push it somewhere else?”

Throughout history, civilizations have undertaken major geoengineering projects for a variety of purposes, from water management to land reclamation.

The Pyramids of Egypt (c. 2580 - 2560 BC) and The Great Wall of China (c. 7th century BC - 17th century AD) demonstrate early large-scale engineering endeavors, although not for climate mitigation. They are evidence that we can do really cool things, like implement cooling towers throughout the desert, and making more sea walls.
The Roman Aqueducts (c. 312 BC - 226 AD) highlight advanced hydraulic engineering. Romans moved water 800+ km with more primative tech, so why doubt that we can do it today?
The Zuiderzee Works (1920s) and The Three Gorges Dam (1994-2006) showcase efforts in land reclamation and flood control. Who is against more hydroelectric power???
Dubai's Palm Islands (2001-present) and the Qattara Depression Project illustrate modern ambitions in land alteration and potential energy generation. Islands can be formed today by dresding sand from sea floors. Water can be redirected in nature.
Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) and Iron Fertilization represent contemporary geoengineering proposals aimed at climate change mitigation. Imagine no more worrying about trash. Imagine more coral reefs.
The South-North Water Transfer Project, China (2002-present): This ambitious project aims to divert water from the Yangtze River in the south to the drier northern regions of China through a series of canals and reservoirs. ie Big countries are really invested in water.

These projects aren’t all. As a kid, I loved reading about Chinampas. 5,000 years ago, the Crannogs in Scotland and Ireland made islands for defense. Chinampas, the famous “floating gardens,” came form Aztecs 1,400 years ago, for agricultural purposes. In Medieval Europe, Celts and Scots built islands again. 400 years ago, the Dutch became famous for creating polders (tracts of land reclaimed from the sea or a river) by building dykes and then draining the land behind them. I mentioned Dubai’s “Palm Islands” above, but not that Japan made the Kansai International Airport (1987-1994) by first making an island.

Portable harbors and artificial islands were used by militaries, for environmental purposes and for recreational use (ex: Floating Islands of Peru to Little Island of NYC). These projects showcase humanity's capability in shaping our environment.

Chinampa illustrations are so cool! Go look them up right now.

When I asked people about building artificial islands and redirecting mass amounts of water, they’d look at me like I’m crazy. Solutions are seldom a part of the climate change conversation. Yet the necessity for innovative solutions in the climate change dialogue is undeniable. And the history proving it is possible is available for you to read.

The obvious, negative answer to my question is that it would cost $Trillions. It could. Or maybe it would be cheaper. Maybe it would make money. Maybe we can initiate smaller-scale, billion-dollar projects as stepping stones towards more ambitious goals. Maybe we rely on volunteers from every state. Be ambitious.

[Spoiler: I will share a proposal for $250 billion over 50 years.]

She is our national treasure! Esp if Garrison Keillor is somehow still canceled.

Fiat currency: Allowing every country on Earth to owe money, bc it’s worth what we say it is.

I turned to Chat GPT to help me convert my stupid thoughts into something coherent. I added specific details to my prompt, based on previous prompt-answer observations. Like, I had to specify that i do not want the whole ocean moved, but rather just enough to offset rising sea levels. The results by prompt 4 were… still not great. And yet, I think it is enough to inspire practical geoengineering innovation. You decide.

Guy:

I would like to write a short paper on geoengineering to offset climate change. It should focus on the feasability of diverting water from the ocean to offset rising sea levels and other global climate patterns. It can discuss the building of artificial islands and other geoengineering feats, some of which were accomplished thousands of years ago.

Note, while the sheer volume of the ocean is 1.332 billion cubic kilometers, the vast majority is deep ocean. This effort should avoid affecting deep ocean, as the marine life could be disrupted. Instead, we would focus on offsetting the 3.3 mm/year rise of sea levels only.

To do this, I propose attempting to divert 4 mm/year. This is a massive amount of water, about 1,444 km^3 year. However, I think it can fit inside of less inhabited desert areas, esp the Gobi Desert, and then the Taklamakan Desert. This would require efforts from most East Asian countries. Please calculate how this can be achieved over a 50 year period.

The paper should discuss the potential for hydroelectric power generated by this water diversion, and the potential for irrigating dry land that is prone to fires. It should also discuss the potnetial for more fertile land and crops.

[After Chat GPT’s first response, I added, “I want you to add cost estimates and a timeline. These cost estimates should factor in money earned from electricity generated.”]

Chat GPT:

Geoengineering to Offset Climate Change: Diverting Ocean Water to Combat Rising Sea Levels

Abstract:

This paper presents a comprehensive investigation into the feasibility and potential benefits of diverting ocean water into desert regions. The goal is to combat rising sea levels while simultaneously harnessing economic and ecological benefits.

1. Introduction

Rising sea levels present urgent challenges. This proposal seeks to divert 4 mm/year of ocean water, offsetting the 3.3 mm/year rise, and examine the financial feasibility, timelines, and environmental implications of such a venture.

2. Quantitative Analysis

We are looking at diverting about 1,444 km^3 annually, resulting in 72,200 km^3 over 50 years.

2.1 Feasibility in the Gobi and Taklamakan Deserts

To effectively utilize the diverted water, areas within the Gobi and Taklamakan deserts would be targeted for water storage and distribution.

3. Potential Benefits

3.1 Hydroelectric Power Generation

Given the terrain difference between ocean levels and desert basins, a potential drop could be used to generate hydroelectric power.

3.2 Land Reclamation and Fire Mitigation

Increased soil moisture can deter wildfires and make regions agriculturally viable.

3.3 Agricultural Enhancement

Transforming desert lands into fertile regions can support agriculture, boosting food production and local economies.

4. Financial Feasibility and Timeline

4.1 Infrastructure Costs

Estimated initial investment: $500 billion. This includes:

Pipeline construction

Reservoirs and dam infrastructures

Water treatment facilities

4.2 Hydroelectric Power Revenue

Estimated annual revenue from hydroelectric power generation: $10 billion.

Over 50 years, this sums up to $500 billion, effectively recouping the initial investment.

4.3 Operational Costs

Estimated annual maintenance and operational cost: $5 billion.

Over 50 years: $250 billion.

4.4 Net Expenditure Over 50 years

Initial investment + Operational Costs - Revenue from Power Generation:

$500 billion + $250 billion - $500 billion = $250 billion.

4.5 Timeline

Years 1-5: Planning, environmental impact assessment, and initial construction.

Years 6-10: Completion of major construction milestones, pilot water diversion.

Years 11-50: Full-fledged operation, maintenance, and gradual expansion.

5. Challenges and Concerns

Ecological impacts, geopolitical intricacies, and socio-economic implications will pose challenges. Thorough studies are crucial before execution.

6. Conclusion

The project, though ambitious, presents a net expenditure of $250 billion over 50 years but promises environmental, agricultural, and energy benefits. While challenges are anticipated, the multifaceted advantages demand further research and dialogue.

Acknowledgments: This paper is a synthesis of projected estimations. Real-world implementation would require rigorous study and international collaboration.