My thought is that, it is possible, we are in the midst of human induced "global warming" at the same time as natural "climate variation" is warming up the planet for a double wammy. Conservation, by itself, will not be enough. I don't know if this idea is correct, but it seems to be prudent that governments around the world employ an arsenal of programs to meet the potential impact of the melting of the polar ice caps. This would include solar power, wind power, tidal power, nuclear power, limits on fossil fuels and limits on population growth. It would also include river diversion.

At the same time, it is being reported that, around the world, aquifers are being depleted to meet the needs agriculture for the growing human population. I have never read, in any study relating the models used to predict the rise in sea levels due to the melting of the ice caps, the possibility of diverting rivers from flowing into the oceans to flow into the interior so that sea levels will not rise as quickly.

From the engineering point of view, how much water in the past has been diverted from flowing to the oceans and what is the corresponding impact on sea levels? We should not try to argue whether water diversion is good or bad. Just the fact please! Is it one inch or one foot or ten feet? What is the total capacity of all the aquifers around the world to absorb water and relate that to sea levels? Will it make a difference? From an engineering point of view, even if you find that the impact on sea levels in not that great, it would be important because it answers a question that has not been asked before. From the political point of view, you can still discuss the politics of diversion of rivers that cross borders.

From the political point of view, who stands to gain and who stands to lose from diverting rivers from the ocean? From an engineering point of view, what impact will it have on the environment? A few years ago, I read that diverting the largest river which flows into Hudson's Bay would eliminate the annual winter freezing, because fresh water floats on salt water and icebergs form. With no fresh water flowing into Hudson's Bay, it would be ice free all year and huge new fishery would be created to feed the world. Why hasn't this even been considered at the political level? Could Canada claim that fishery is in Canadian waters and limit it to Canadian companies? Would other countries object?

Forty years ago, an American plan (NAWAPA) was proposed to divert the mighty Canadian Mackenzie River, which flows into the Arctic Ocean, south to the United States to replenish the huge Ogallala aquifer.

(Arctic wild idea preserved - http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=11874 ).

All Canadians thought that the plan was nuts! Americans can't steal our water. We would rather piss it into the ocean. What would have been the impact on ocean levels if this plan had been approved 40 years ago? Politically, why was there opposition to the plan, and would there be the same opposition today?

There are also plans to divert Russian rivers that flow into the Arctic so they can irrigate Central Asia and replenish the Aral Sea. Russian nationalists oppose this plan.

(Arctic to Aral - http://ecoworld.com/Home/Articles2.cfm?TID=378)

The question that I would like answered is this:

Do these models of rising sea levels address the possibility of diverting rivers that flow into the oceans so that they can irrigate deserts, steppes, and replenish the aquifers that are currently being depleted? If they don't, then it indicates a bias that climate researchers have against engineering our way out of the impending global warming crisis in favour of a passive conservation approach.

Below is an example of the mindset of researchers in the field of global warming and water deficits. No mention of large scale river diversions

WATER DEFICITS GROWING IN MANY COUNTRIES

http://www.greatlakesdirectory.org/zarticles/080902_water_shortages.htm

"The two keys to stabilising aquifers are raising water prices and stabilising population. The first step is to eliminate the pervasive subsidies that create artificially low prices for water in so many countries. The next is to raise water prices to the point where they will reduce pumping to a sustainable level by raising water productivity and reducing water use in all segments of society. Low-income urban consumers can be protected with "lifeline rates" that provide for basic needs at an affordable price. Prices of underground water can be raised by installing meters on pumps and charging for water as Mexico has done or by auctioning permits to operate wells. Either way, water prices rise. "

It doesn't change the story much, but the numbers don't quite tie.

First of all, it's important not to confuse CO2 with all GHGs. When I've seen the 20 ton/head and 3.2/head numbers for US and China, it's been CO2 only. It also doesn't make any sense to add CO2 and methane emissions together on a mass basis, because methane is a much stronger GHG per unit mass.

That said, the math still doesn't work. Let's say the day has arrived where US and Chinese human CO2 emissions are equal. 20 vs. 3.2 is a ratio of 6.25. The ratio of Chinese pop (1.318B at present- pulled from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population) to US pop (302M, same source) is 4.4. The ratios would need to be equal. Which suggests that Chinese per capita emissions have to be more like 4.6 tons/head/year, which is a huge increase in a short period of time.

Again, it doesn't change the basic story (US has been the CO2 leader for a long time, but we have company, but we're richer, China's not nice, what to do?), but let's be careful with the numbers.

BTW to the previous poster- river diversion to address sea level rise? Are you serious? I don't know even where to start. How about you compute annual river influx and divide by the surface area of the ocean? Wikipedia and Google are your friends. I would be willing to bet that the reason this 'solution' is not actively considered is because it would be really ineffectual, be really expensive vs. other options, and have so many side-effects that would be much worse than sea level increase that I don't even know where to begin...