Not really no, as the fuel is burned it turns into water again and re enters the 'water cycle' and will just end up back in the ocean.
But if you had a lot of people and huge cars there would a temporary storage effect. As to Yorkshire Independence, have you ever considered the advantages of being part of the United States?
Don't blow us off so quickly. You wouldn't have to change your patriotic colors. All the rich Britions would move their residences to your "state" to escape high UK taxes, so you could tax them too. We have a kick-ass military, Disney on both coasts. No more visas to come and visit. You would have the best socc..., excuse me football and cricket players in the US. Sounds like a win/win to me!
yes, and it takes the cake for the most crack potted idea i hav eever heard of. You obviously have no clue how much mass yo uare talking about moving, and how your alleged solution would not only cause more problems than it would solve, but might likely simply fail because greenland sludges out into the ocean. I'm talking about SOLVING the problem you seem to think you are addressing. Yes, using nukes placed underground you can make volcanoes. Howzabout if we lower sea level the old fashioned way- by lowering global temperature and having polar ice? ?????? Telling me that doesn't make sense is pretty ironic when it would at least work, and would cost a very tiny fraction of the amount which your plan would- while your plan for a variety of reasons could just as easilly backfire.
It doesn't make sense though, you stick a nuke under ground, it explodes, at best it would just create a big semi spherical mountain which however small would add to the rising sea level problem.
There are a few ways to go about it. Using micro nukes placed intelligently at several distant locations could work just fine. You are probably right, a single nuke wouldn't do that much. Notice i used an S which you left off. However, the idea that it would change sea level seems a bit odd; its the same as it was before there is just more rubble; same volumes of same amount of rocks and same amount of water. More or less the same thing could be accomplished with standard explosives and mining techniques. The main point I would make is either way, you are talking about making a hole a few kilometers deep and hundreds of kilomters in diameter. I'm talking about making one maybe a few hundred meters deep and one or two kilometers in diameter. Which is obviously more feasible?
by putting ozone back up in the atmosphere, and thus by making global temperatures cooler, and thus more ice at the poles. I would have thought that part to be obvious...
Nope, you're not making any sense. How the heck is setting nukes off underground and supposedly making artificial volcanoes going to lower the sea level? if anything it's going to release carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere and speed up the greenhouse effect.
If he's not making sense to me then I will tell him so, there is nothing in any rule book saying I cannot tell someone they're not making any sense, I am trying to ascertain how his plan works, he has yet to explain to me how creating undersea volcanoes will lower the sea level or even prevent global warming. I am not being rude, I am not trying to be an ass I am simply telling him I don't understand how his plan supposedly works. Why are you trying to make me out to be some kind of bad guy here? because it's not necessary for you to tell me to give someone some slack when I'm not even doing anything wrong. I'm getting sick and tired of people like you waltzing into a thread twisting things around trying to make out I'm some kind of dick and being a mod you should know better. No doubt I'll now get a pasting for speaking up about this, that's how this board works after all. I wish people would cut ME some slack for once.
Oh that's a fantastic idea. The United States and Canada might even get another set of Great Lakes out of the deal. ---------------
I'm not twisting anything. You're simply sticking tenaciously to this Greenland concept despite the fact that it's completely impractical. To be honest, I figured you must be joking earlier in this thread, like Seven of Eleven was in the flat earth thread. But if not, my bad.
Actually, we have already artificially lowered sea level (or at least prevented more sea level rise) by building dams. Since 1930, building of dams and reservoirs reduced sea level rise by 3 cm - it would have been 30% greater without the reservoirs. Of course, if the Greenland ice cap were to melt significantly in the next couple hundred years no amount of dam-building will have any help whatsoever. -MEC
Human beings are 61% water. So if every human being were bigger (and fatter) than present, between them they'd hold enough extra moisture to make up for the increase in sea level. We need to cancel the 'war on obesity' immediately and start using our human selves as water storage units. Diuretics need to be banned forthwith. A plump person is holding the sea level down! So have another burger and do your bit for the environment!
That could be easily fixed by the opening of Disney Yorkshire. Imagine how cool it would look with buildings from the Vikings, Celts, Romans, etc.