Slashdot Mirror


UAE To Build Artificial Mountain To Improve Rainfall (engadget.com)

An anonymous reader writes: The United Arab Emirates is in the early stages of developing an artificial mountain that would force air upwards and create clouds that could produce additional rainfall. While the Middle East and Africa continues to get hotter, researchers are further motivated and more desperate for solutions to maximize rainfall. "Building a mountain is not a simple thing," said NCAR scientist and lead researcher Roelof Bruintjes. "We are still busy finalizing assimilation, so we are doing a spread of all kinds of heights, widths and locations [as we simultaneously] look at the local climatology." The specific location has yet to be decided on as the team is still testing out different sites across the UAE. "If [the project] is too expensive for [the government], logically the project won't go through, but this gives them an idea of what kind of alternatives there are for the long-term future." Bruintjes said. "If it goes through, the second phase would be to go to an engineering company and decide whether it is possible or not."

216 comments

  1. Why not a wall by Snotnose · · Score: 1

    Seems to me it's easier to build a nice tall wall to block the wind and collect the moisture than it is a mountain. The wind and water won't know. Maybe even put some drainage ditches at the base of the wall to catch the rain. Hell, make the wall some 5-10 meters thick and fill it with apartments, retail, and office space.

    1. Re: Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To have a significant effect, it would have to be about as tall as the tallest building on Earth, if not taller. Plus, you'll probably create some unintended effects like lots of dust devils and sandstorms. It's a really awful idea.

    2. Re:Why not a wall by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 4, Funny

      President Trump's brilliant plan to address climate change.

    3. Re:Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All he needs to do is record a campaign speech and sell it to UAE. UEA engineers will then deploy the Trump-election-speech to the strategic locations to lift the hot air into the heights previously unheard of. It will result rainfall with principles working as the condensation nuclei for the raindrops.

    4. Re:Why not a wall by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      My guess: for a mountain, all you need to do is pile up dirt. It's like a reverse mining operation: we have proven skill in moving enough dirt to build a mountain.

      But for a wall, you need to do a heavy bit of engineering and a bunch of maintenance, too.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:Why not a wall by plopez · · Score: 1

      They could get Mexico to pay for it.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    6. Re: Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      To have a significant effect, it would have to be about as tall as the tallest building on Earth, if not taller.

      Yeah, the UAE couldn't build anything that tall.

    7. Re:Why not a wall by Pseudonym · · Score: 5, Funny

      My guess: for a mountain, all you need to do is pile up dirt.

      Even simpler, you could build a molehill and then invite the Slashdot comment section over to do the rest.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    8. Re: Why not a wall by robi5 · · Score: 2

      One word: skiing.

    9. Re:Why not a wall by SumDog · · Score: 1

      In that...is that a Dune reference?

    10. Re: Why not a wall by tchdab1 · · Score: 2

      If you build it near the coast, it could be used to live on when the sea level rises and wipes out what you built the mountain to protect.

    11. Re: Why not a wall by sce7mjm · · Score: 1

      It would probably be hollow. A space frame with a skin. A solid mountain would require too much material.

    12. Re:Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now everything is clear. Trump is really a secret Mexican agent. If the Mexicans build the wall then of course the water that comes off it will belong to them and they will be able to sell it all to the southern states.

      Think about this. It also explains why he's so irrationally and stupidly rude about Latin Americans. It's in order to build up sympathy for them in the general population and also get the army (which will be mostly made up of Latin Americans within a few years) on their side in case Mexico has to invade the US to defend their water rights.

    13. Re:Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have often though that painting a matt black stripe (say 1 KM across) N-S across Australia would achieve the same effect, since most weather systems travel W-E It would absorb a lot of heat, which will create a thermal barrier similar to a wall. I haven't done the maths though.

    14. Re:Why not a wall by KGIII · · Score: 1

      Do you mean matte? If your maths are equal to your literacy, this should be interesting. ;-)

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    15. Re:Why not a wall by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


      Dude, don't knock it. He's clearly a successful businessman and isn't a "bought" candidate.

      Sure his ideas sound quirky but no one else is brave enough to try.

      I'm sure that once he increase poverty rates, worsens inequality, creates an international diplomatic incident and possibly run the economy to self-serving interests to the detriment of all and eventually bring the country to brink of ruin a new candidate will emerge. People will then remember how he wasn't the guy they voted for and that he said a bunch of stuff he didn't actually do.

      So yes, a wall. That might genuinely be his idea and in his mind this might fix climate change.

      --
      A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
    16. Re:Why not a wall by driblio · · Score: 1

      It's a British vs American thing, mainly. Us brits have thrown of the French trailing 'e', while you lot persist with it as you are stuck under the Gallic thumb ;)

    17. Re:Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean matte? If your maths are equal to your literacy, this should be interesting. ;-)

      Ok, so what's this then?
      Pot, meet kettle...

    18. Re: Why not a wall by DigiShaman · · Score: 4, Funny

      That wall just got 10 ft taller!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    19. Re: Why not a wall by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      A Super Aggro Crag you say? That would take some Global Guts to construct!

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    20. Re:Why not a wall by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Here are some man-made mountains under construction:

      http://www.southernfriedscienc...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    21. Re:Why not a wall by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      There is more to it than that (though you are right with what you said). A wall is a relatively flat thing vertically. So all the weight is pushing straight down. The higher and taller it gets, the more weight it is - the stronger the base needs to be. There's an upper limit to what height and length a wall of a given material can be. Buildings are easier - they are essentially hollow structures, so there's a bit less weight, and even there we are basically at the limits of what our current building materials can do. Sure you could try building out of something stronger - but that will get *very* expensive.

      A mountain is easier. Mountains start wide and get thinner going up, so the weight is more evenly distributed over a larger carrying base. Closer to a pyramid than to a wall (and at least part of the reason those ancient tombs were pyramids is because it was the only way to get buildings that high to stay up when you build them by basically stacking rocks on each other).

      So what if you were to build a wall shaped with a wide base that got progressively thinner ? Well at that stage you're basically building a mountain out of concrete, and frankly dirt is cheaper.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    22. Re: Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very Good Idea. Instant Extreme Sports Tourism.
      Also could make the foundations out of enough concrete to hide depleted uranium and all manner of the worlds nasty stuff.
      With plenty of shade underneath lit by radioactive plants.

      This idea gets better and better.

      Until they start taxing the rainfall to pay it off that is....

    23. Re:Why not a wall by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      My guess: for a mountain, all you need to do is pile up dirt.

      Even simpler, you could build a molehill and then invite the Slashdot comment section over to do the rest.

      I only regret that I cannot mod this higher.

    24. Re: Why not a wall by laie_techie · · Score: 1

      To have a significant effect, it would have to be about as tall as the tallest building on Earth, if not taller. Plus, you'll probably create some unintended effects like lots of dust devils and sandstorms. It's a really awful idea.

      Look to the lee of every mountain. Your mountain will rob rainfall from somewhere else. Is that considered an "unintended effect"?

    25. Re:Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if they had said shield.

      Or mentioned keeping out the Sandworms.

    26. Re: Why not a wall by speedplane · · Score: 1

      One word: skiing.

      Too late. They already have that in the UAE: http://www.theplaymania.com/sk...

      --
      Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
    27. Re:Why not a wall by mea2214 · · Score: 1

      Tear down the wall!

    28. Re:Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      My wife does this type of topic-escalation very well. I'll volunteer her & the mountain will be built in under a week!

    29. Re:Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TY TY ROFLMAO for a great start

    30. Re:Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jeeezus ... did you see the prediction for how much they'll have in 100 years? 405 billion cubic meters. That's a cube 7 KM on a side.

      And forget pyramid, this is Canada, northern Canada even with a nice long Winter. Let's build the world's biggest best ski resort!!

      Google tells me the biggest vertical in North America is 5000 feetThat's only 1.5 KM. The largest acreage is 8000 acres, that's 32 square km. Let's make a pyramidal trapezoid. We'd probably end up with a 5KM vertical, and (not doing detailed math here, order of magnitude guess) ... four sides 8km long, each with a 40 to 60 degree slope that runs for 7km ... so we'd have 230 square KM.

      So we'd go from: 5,000 foot vertical, 8,000 acres
      to this: 16,000 foot vertical, 57,000 acres

    31. Re:Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure that once he increase poverty rates, worsens inequality, creates an international diplomatic incident and possibly run the economy to self-serving interests to the detriment of all and eventually bring the country to brink of ruin a new candidate will emerge. People will then remember how he wasn't the guy they voted for and that he said a bunch of stuff he didn't actually do.

      Are you referring to Trump or Obama?

    32. Re:Why not a wall by plopez · · Score: 1

      And it would make it impossible for Americans to leave the country

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    33. Re: Why not a wall by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Probably not an issue if your lee is the Gulf of Oman or the Persian Gulf (I don't honestly know what the prevailing wind is in UAE).

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    34. Re: Why not a wall by Thelasko · · Score: 1

      To have a significant effect, it would have to be about as tall as the tallest building on Earth, if not taller. Plus, you'll probably create some unintended effects like lots of dust devils and sandstorms. It's a really awful idea.

      Joseph Dalton Hooker conducted a similar experiment on Ascension Island in the 1800's. They key is to plant the summit with vegetation that will trap water from the winds. Hooker was successful in transforming the island by planting vegetation on Green Mountain. Now the island has changed dramatically from what it was 200 years ago.

      --
      One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
    35. Re: Why not a wall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right? Isn't that what sky scrapers are?

    36. Re: Why not a wall by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      http://www.britannica.com/plac...

      It looks like the prevailing winds are from the Mediterranean towards the south (east and west). So, if they were to build mountains along their East or South, it might work, but would shadow parts of Oman and Saudi Arabia.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    37. Re:Why not a wall by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      The funny thing about all of this is that Mexico wants the wall too and is willing to chip in for it.

      A wall on the Mexican-American border will slow and possibly stop the drug trade which is devastating the northern parts of Mexico.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    38. Re:Why not a wall by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      The newer Google images are even better than the one in that story. Those are some serious Pyramids, they should totally build them as replicas of the Egyptian pyramids.

      https://www.google.com/maps/@5...

      You can zoom in more than that, but it won't show all three structures.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    39. Re:Why not a wall by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't a dirt mountain that was built for generating rain kind of have erosion issues? I suppose you could cap it with concrete to hold the dirt in place.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This comes off like the idea of a wall on the southern border of Kansas to stop tornadoes. It's poorly thought out and might have undesired climate impacts. I'm also not sure it will be effective. You might generate more rainfall on the mountain, while drying things out downstream. It's called a rain shadow. That might piss off whoever is downstream. Why not install solar panels and use the reflected light to heat an area? Heating a large enough volume of air would generate an updraft, which should generate convective clouds and produce rainfall. It's about as credible as an artificial mountain.

    1. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Israel is state downstream then it is win-win for the muslims. Allahu akbar!

    2. Re:BS by jalet · · Score: 1, Troll

      Did you ever open a world map in your existence ???

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    3. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need a atmospheric map over time. A geopolitical map would be useless for that purpose. Allahu akbar!

      But I guess the point of your comment was to feel smart. Does it work? Do you feel smart?

    4. Re:BS by Amouth · · Score: 1

      why would that stop them?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    5. Re:BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allahu akbar!

      Interestingly enough, when translated, it gets almost exactly the same meaning as the name John.

    6. Re:BS by jalet · · Score: 1

      The point wasn't to feel smart, just average. Your (?) comment above shows you don't have any idea about basic geography. No need to be smart for this, just to be open and to show interest in other people by knowing at least where they live.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
  3. This doesn't make sense. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The engineering challenges for this are insane. Just trying to move that much materiel would break the bank. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of desal + irrigating the whole country comes in at a lower price....

    1. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Tailhook · · Score: 0

      that much materiel

      Don't be naive. The structure(s) would be hollow. The picture of the pretty green mountain in the story is just to keep you from freaking out too much; in reality it would be a giant rebar and concrete shell, built by disposable immigrant labor (like everything else in UAE) and unburdened by any OSHA/NLRB/EEOC/EPA friction. The global climate cabal will say nothing at all because they never trouble themselves with nations that are not prone to tolerating wealth transfer schemes.

      --
      Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
    2. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      That would be even more difficult to build and even more expensive than just piling the material up. Bulk material transfer conveyors and then stone blocks acting as a bund would likely be the most cost effective way of building it. Even assuming a labour cost of zero if the structure was hollow and self supporting it would be an unparalleled technical achievement. If you were just piling material it would be a massive logistics feat not so much a technical one.

    3. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No problem. A small mountain at 5,000 feet (assuming a cone) would be approximately $1,584,000,000,000 at $20 per cubic yard of material.

    4. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is the exponential increase in material required to gain any useful elevation. A massive reforestation project down at sea level, on the other hand, could have a similar effect; fission-powered desalination could supply the irrigation needs.

    5. Re:This doesn't make sense. by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Hey, we're talking about the UAE here . . . unfeasible expensive building projects don't need to make sense . . . in the "Talking Heads" sense of the phrase.

      The answer to the material question is really quite simple, actually. Just use trash. Make the mountain an above ground landfill. The world is awash in trash, that nobody wants . . . hell, the rest of the world will pay the UAE to stash their trash in an environmentally friendly climate changing mountain in the UAE.

      Old cars, useless electronic gadgets . . . bring it on, and pile it up! The baking hot sun will fry it enough so that it won't stink.

      A win--win for the whole world.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little bitch? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class in the Navy Seals, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret raids on Al-Quaeda, and I have over 300 confirmed kills. I am trained in gorilla warfare and I’m the top sniper in the entire US armed forces. You are nothing to me but just another target. I will wipe you the fuck out with precision the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, mark my fucking words. You think you can get away with saying that shit to me over the Internet? Think again, fucker. As we speak I am contacting my secret network of spies across the USA and your IP is being traced right now so you better prepare for the storm, maggot. The storm that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call your life. You’re fucking dead, kid. I can be anywhere, anytime, and I can kill you in over seven hundred ways, and that’s just with my bare hands. Not only am I extensively trained in unarmed combat, but I have access to the entire arsenal of the United States Marine Corps and I will use it to its full extent to wipe your miserable ass off the face of the continent, you little shit. If only you could have known what unholy retribution your little “clever” comment was about to bring down upon you, maybe you would have held your fucking tongue. But you couldn’t, you didn’t, and now you’re paying the price, you goddamn idiot. I will shit fury all over you and you will drown in it. You’re fucking dead, kiddo.

    7. Re:This doesn't make sense. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is the exponential increase in material required to gain any useful elevation.

      The increase in material would not be exponential. It would be a quadratic function of the height.

    8. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Develop the world's largest graphene production facility and make the mountain out of that. Much lighter and stronger. (I'm not an engineer)

    9. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The desalination and irrigating would make them more dependent of energy and foreign technology. Building an artificial mountain could be the more sustainable solution in the destabilizing area of the world, and give the citizens more equal access to the benefits.

    10. Re:This doesn't make sense. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Couldn't they just suspend a huge sheet of graphene from two helicopters?

    11. Re:This doesn't make sense. by quenda · · Score: 1

      Agreed. It would be so much easier and cheaper to buy land elsewhere, and move the Emirates.

        "If the mountain can't come to the Mohammedans then the Mohammedans must go to the mountain."

    12. Re:This doesn't make sense. by xvan · · Score: 1

      And comments like this is why I keep coming to /.

    13. Re:This doesn't make sense. by xvan · · Score: 1

      What's environmentally friendly about piling tons of toxic waste?

    14. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      ". The structure(s) would be hollow."

      The article lacks detail, but I've heard this scheme expressed as being a row of large balloons holding up a fabric sheet, which hopefully wouldn't blow away in the first haboob.

    15. Re:This doesn't make sense. by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      You do know SOCOM is a video game, right?

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:This doesn't make sense. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Just trying to move that much materiel would break the bank.

      We already move that much material with mining operations.

      I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of desal + irrigating the whole country comes in at a lower price....

      Yeah, you're probably right.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:This doesn't make sense. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      mines all over the world regularly move that much material. They also have other huge operations that they can leverage experience from like building man made islands of Dubai. It would definitely be expensive but I can't see it as a huge engineering or bank breaking challenge.

    18. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Amouth · · Score: 2

      If you made it a hollow cone 1 mile tall and 1 mile wide at the base and a surface of 6in think reinforced concrete, you would be looking at only ~450m for the concrete. Now you need to have a solid structure to support that, but even then you are only looking at maybe a x2 multiplier IF you can come up with some really slick methods of erecting a self supporting cone of steel.

      that being said a 1m high and wide cone could be built for ~1 billion in material costs. And for the UAE, that is nothing more than the latest show off challenge and the typical price tag to go with it. (their super sky scrapers are ~1.5 billion each)

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    19. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By my estimates, if this was built as an actual residential or office building, a 2 mile high pyramid shaped structure (with a 2 mile base) could be manufactured out of about 3.7 billion tons of concrete and steel. Alternatively, it could be a wedge shape, which might be better for these purposes, with about 5 billion tons of concrete and steel. Having a broad-based structure that narrows to a point would be necessary to reach that kind of height at pretty much the absolute limits of that kind of construction. The resulting structure could have about 8 - 12 billion square feet of floor space, making it effectively an entire city (large enough to house the entire UAE population). Extremely conservative cost estimates would be in the 1 Trillion dollar range.

      This could also be made as just a giant pile of stuff. For example, sand. The typical angle of repose of sand is about 34 degrees, but if we're trying to make a pile equivalent to the pyramid or wedge in the previous example, I'm not really sure what the weight of two miles of sand does to the bottom layers, and thus how it affects the angle of repose. If we assume it's unchanged, then a two mile high pile of sand contains about 101 billion cubic yards of sand. To make the 2 mile high, two mile wide wedge similar to the previous example (not exactly the same, since the previous solid structure would have just had a straight two mile drop on two edges, whereas the sandpile tapers at the 34 degree angle) would take about 165 billion cubic yards. A typical dump truck carries about 12 cubic yards, so that would be 13.75 billion dump truck trips. Assuming a twenty year project, with 20 trips a day, 320 days of the year, that would take about 108,000 dump trucks and the equipment to load them. From the numbers I can find, a 7-year lifecyle for operating a dumptruck, including purchase, will be about $800,000, so 20 years will be about $2.4 million (although a significant portion of that is driver pay, and the UAE exploits a lot of cheap migrant labor). If we double that we can approximate the costs of loading the trucks at the sand strip mines and we get $4.8 million per truck, for a total of about $519 billion. The pile would need to be sealed somehow to stop the sand blowing away, and in fact, the whole thing might have extra support from layers of geotextiles and other support throughout.

      Another option might be to create a lighter than air structure. A giant inflatable sheet could be constructed and tethered to the ground with light-weight guy wires in an arrangement that would result in a quite stiff structure. What to use as a lifting gas would be a big question. Helium would be out due to scarcity. Hydrogen might work, but the inflatable would need to be made of materials that would counter the diffusion of hydrogen. Methane might work. That does leave the problem of flammability. Sections could be firewalled from each other by areas filled only with nitrogen. Alternatively, it might be possible to simply use pure nitrogen, which is a very weak lifting gas, being slightly less dense than the typical Nitrogen/Oxygen/Argon mix of our atomosphere. Another possibility is a collection of nitrogen-inflated vacuum cells if that idea can be made to work (the idea involves an inflatable honeycomb structure with a void in the center which can be evacuated, leaving the entire structure on average less dense, but I'm not sure if it's actually been proven possible). Anyway, such a structure might prove to be the cheapest way that an artificial mountain-sized object can be constructed. I'm not really sure how to estimate costs. I do know that, as a structure intended to deflect massive volumes of moving air that's also lighter than air, it will need to be constructed very well.

    20. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      garbage =/= toxic waste

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    21. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I know you're just joking, but I'm going to answer anyway. The answer is no. The whole point of this is to deflect massive amounts of air. A massive sheet deflecting air is a sail. A mountain sized sail is going to be vastly stronger than the most powerful helicopters on the planet. They would be hurled out of the sky.

    22. Re:This doesn't make sense. by hankwang · · Score: 1

      It's quadratic with height for a solid mountain. If you use a porous construction (steel beams with a roof), it's probably exponential, but with a tiny prefactor. I wouldn't know which is more expensive; both are astronomical in cost.

    23. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      How high and how wide would it have to be? Superpit in Australia is 3.7km long, 1.5km wide but only 470m deep and it is one of the largest open pit mines in the world. Would that amount of material be enough to have any measurable impact on the climate? And then there comes the challenge that any material that you use in this mountain will be loose aggregate, so you would need to retain all of it or have a really shallow slope dramatically increasing the volume of material needed. This is a major difference between building the pile and digging a hole.

      As for the islands, all they dig was vacuum the sand off the bottom of the ocean in one place and pump it to another place. The total transfer distance was really small. I doubt you could get enough dirt from immediately around the base of the mound for that to be feasible so it would require huge logistics.

    24. Re:This doesn't make sense. by BlacKSacrificE · · Score: 1

      ..Until such a time as the compounds and materials that garbage is made from starts to decompose down to their basic elements (like heavy metals, dioxins and other nasties) due to erosive, UV and other breakdown processes, at which time it becomes, you guessed it, toxic waste. Or are you still under the infantile presumption that all the things in the world are made from rainbows and unicorn shit as opposed to chemicals and capitalism?

      --
      [Sorry, this signature is unavailable in your country/region]
    25. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Right, cuz waste management isn't a thing.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    26. Re:This doesn't make sense. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      while our Australian mines are huge, they are no where near the biggest or deepest. The one near salt lake city is over a kilometer deep. There is an open cut mining operation in Germany which covers an area of around 50 Square Kilometers.

    27. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even tall buildings can have measurable impacts on localised climate, including altering wind patterns and creating clouds of fogs under the right conditions. A mountain wouldn't actually have to be all that big to affect the rain patterns of a localised area.

    28. Re: This doesn't make sense. by sce7mjm · · Score: 1

      Wrong. If it is hollow then the volume inside it increases massively whilst the skin area supporting structure increases relatively slowly.

    29. Re:This doesn't make sense. by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      The problem is the exponential increase in material required to gain any useful elevation.

      The increase in material would not be exponential. It would be a quadratic function of the height.

      Maybe he wants an inverted pyramid?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    30. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Bingham canyon is deeper, and Hull Rust is biggest overall, but even those open pit monstrosities aren't enough material to build a climate changing mountain.

    31. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Median cloud cover in UAE ranges from 0% to 24% depending on the time of year. The air is very dry most of the time, so to have any measurable impact on rainfall you would need to raise the air a long way. There is a big step between creating localised wind and achieving rainfall

    32. Re:This doesn't make sense. by OpenSourced · · Score: 1

      Well, think out of the box. Just locate an asteroid of the required girth, and drop in on place. You have time to get it to the right orbit. Use several hundred EmDrives powered by sun cells to do that. Then a bit of atmosphere braking, not too much, careful not to get it broken. For the final braking, I'd use a crude version of the project Orion system, explode a couple of nuclear bombs on the underside of the asteroid.

      Hey! Bonus idea! If the asteroid is partly ice (see Asimov's "The Martian Way" for reference), you probably won't need the rain at all, for some years.

      I'm sure anybody would sell some nuclear bombs to an Arab country for such an interesting project... and the technology to throw a big asteroid to Earth is so interesting in itself (see Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" for reference) that everybody will agree on that experiment just having to take place.

      --
      Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    33. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the exponential increase in material required to gain any useful elevation.

      The increase in material would not be exponential. It would be a quadratic function of the height.

      Umm... don't you mean cubic?

      Material goes with volume, volume is cubic...

    34. Re:This doesn't make sense. by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      In local area they are more than sufficient to affect the local weather patterns, especially if relatively close to the ocean, it all comes down to how much of an area they are trying to affect. Even Tall buildings by the cost can cause the generation of fog.

    35. Re:This doesn't make sense. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      And you could make the mountains from the left over salt :D
      Or sell it to the europeans as "pure sea salt".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    36. Re: This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can't ski on a desal plant.

      And you can't go for weekend drive for a cool change.

    37. Re:This doesn't make sense. by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Actually any kind of mountain would be stupid. What you require is a mountain range, a ridge line perpendicular to the predominant moisture carrying winds. Loose aggregate would collapse, so it would need to be compacted in layers of 300mm and need to be something like 10 kilometres long and at least a kilometre high to have are real weather impact. A wall slope of 25 degrees is all that can be achieved and of course the big problem, collecting water means, water erosion tearing down the mountain range you just built ie an impossible feat.

      More realistic a simple upside down funnels. Dark to absorb heat and the wide base clear of the ground. The air is heated and rises inside the funnel, taking that warm air with it moisture to a higher altitude where it can cool and condense and you collect water from the sides of the funnel, as a bonus you can use the airflow to generate electricity, you build an array of those upside hollow cones in a suitable catchment zone to generate electricity. Clad with solar panels to generate even more electricity. You can improve moisture generation by pump salt water to the base to allow evaporate to boost the humidity of the air as it rises or simply build them close to the cost just below high tide level.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    38. Re:This doesn't make sense. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the "global cabal" won't care because the effects are entirely local? Or maybe the evidence for it affecting the local climate of other regions will be found, and this will be addressed. Or you can keep making stuff up to try and feel better about the selfish way you live your life...

    39. Re:This doesn't make sense. by TheCastro1689 · · Score: 1

      What he quoted was the Navy Seal Copypasta: http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/...

    40. Re:This doesn't make sense. by KGIII · · Score: 1

      It's incorrect for me to say that Google is your friend but I will point out that they're likely to be quite handy at this point.

      --
      "So long and thanks for all the fish."
    41. Re: This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No No Material goes up with the cube of the length. What we're talking about is the height.

    42. Re: This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a very thorough analysis but leaves out one possibility using a material both lightweight and plentiful. If everyone in the world sent one box of styrofoam peanuts that's been sitting in the closet for the last two years ...

    43. Re: This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Painting the funnel black and putting air turbines at the spout would probably generate more power, as well as some wicked thermals for gliders!

    44. Re:This doesn't make sense. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Right, cuz waste management isn't a thing.

      It is a thing, but a lot more gets landfilled than you would like to see. They don't break open every bag on purpose, and they are not scrupulous about even getting things out of the pile. At my local landfill I have seen electronics get pushed into the compactor with everything else. Most of them just get thrown into the trash when they break, and if they're small enough they go right into a bag and nobody ever sees them.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    45. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      you're aware that quadratic (polynomial as we in the CS world call it) is smaller then exponential, right? n^2, polynomial, very common in CS, 2^n, exponential, really try to avoid in CS as they tend to blow up quite quickly, though not as bad as n!

    46. Re:This doesn't make sense. by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Well, if the definition of "friend" is "those who know you best" then google may yet qualify again. If you add "and has your best interests at heart" though, it becomes more accurate to say "Google is your stalker".

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    47. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The volume would be cubic, I'd think, if you're simply scaling the mountain (ignore double meaning of "scaling the mountain"). Keeping the shape similar, it's the area which would increase quadratically relative to the height.

      That's for a solid mountain, of course. Most likely they'll construct it in some more material-efficient manner, so the actual function would be some polynomial function with a non-integer exponent on the leading term and a cubic upper bound..

    48. Re:This doesn't make sense. by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Call home depot... I would like 47 million 80lb bags of Quikrete... Do you offer free delivery on orders over a $100 million?

    49. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not that simple. The real world is physics, not math. Yes, a pyramid's volume grows as the 3rd power of its linear dimension. But once you get to non-trivial sizes (pretty much once you're a few floors up, really) the weight of the structure itself becomes an issue. The pressure on the 2D surface depends on the 3D weight above it. This is also one of the reasons why mountains on Earth don't exceed 10km, while Mnt. Olympus on Mars does. A taller mountain would literally sink in the earth's crust.

      So what you would need to construct is a structure where the highest levels are hollow, but the lower levels are increasingly solid. And your construction reaches its highest point when the static pressure exerted by the weight above it. So, we need to take the integral of the cross-section above Z to find the cross-section at height Z. This is a trivial differential equation, and easy to solve: d/dx (f) = C * f(x) where C depends on the weight of your building material, its strength and g (gravity). The solution of course is exp(C*x) - indeed exponential.

    50. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Hey, I'm sure like a lot of things that the execution is different than the intent.

      But GP was too lazy or too stupid to make that point...

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    51. Re:This doesn't make sense. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      :) Reminds me of Monte Testaccio.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    52. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a lot of less problematic waste lying around. For example Monte Kali in Germany is 200m tall covers a surface area of 93 hectares and just consists of dirt and salts not valuable enough to extract. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monte_Kali_%28Heringen%29

    53. Re:This doesn't make sense. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Umm... don't you mean cubic?

      Yes, if the mountain was a cone or pyramid, then it would be cubic. When I said quadratic, I was thinking of a linear ridgeline, which would be more effective at collecting rain. The volume of a ridgeline would increase more-or-less quadratically with height.

    54. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The engineering challenges for this are insane. Just trying to move that much materiel would break the bank. I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of desal + irrigating the whole country comes in at a lower price....

      Why? All they are trying to do is redirect wind etc. They don't need a solid mountain to accomplish that. A structurally sound shell would do the job just fine, and provide a LOT of weather proof storage space for other things at the same time. Heck, build an entire arcology inside of it, hide weapons of mass destruction inside of it, whatever you can imagine!

    55. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if the definition of "friend" is "those who know you best" then google may yet qualify again. If you add "and has your best interests at heart" though, it becomes more accurate to say "Google is your stalker".

      The devil you know, or think you know.

    56. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the man made islands of Dubai have all but washed away I'd be wary of throwing around words like 'expertise'.

    57. Re: This doesn't make sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would make it hollow

    58. Re:This doesn't make sense. by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      http://www.socom.mil/default.a...

      It is also the name for Special Operations COMmand.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  4. No problem by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    And make Zeus pay for it!
      - The Donald

  5. Just the beginning? by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    I suspect we'll see a lot of similar geo-hacks and assorted other climate hacks in the coming decades as weather patterns continue to change. Climate science in general will evolve far beyond what it is today, and may supplant tech as a primary driver of the world's economies. It's time to start steering our kids towards climatology and related fields.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Just the beginning? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's time to start steering our kids towards climatology and related fields.

      This hill will be built by civil engineers, not climatologists.

    2. Re:Just the beginning? by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Even if the Earth turns into Venus, how many jobs could there really be for climatologists? You don't need that many.

      What we need to do is train kids to spray sulfur aerosols into the upper stratosphere! We have enough bad software engineers already.

    3. Re:Just the beginning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Who are we kidding? It's UAE, this hill will be built by slaves.

    4. Re:Just the beginning? by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

      Thinking way back to my introduction to civil engineering subject in first year before the courses split (that's the way we did things in the 1980s) there was a practical session about airflow around large structures. We put blocks in a tank with flowing water and squirted dye in - fun, but it showed why it gets windy at the base of skyscrapers unless effort is made to break up the airflow.
      The two topics are not disconnected even at the very entry level. City microclimates from large flat areas etc are another issue that has been considered even at the introductory level for decades.

    5. Re:Just the beginning? by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Of note to me is that people would rather literally move mountains than move themselves out of a region that commonly sees temps of 50C (and has been at war for quite some time to boot). Something to think about if your answer for rising sea levels is "we can just move". To me, building out massive wind/solar/smart grid/storage capacity seems even easier than moving a mountain. Oh well, guess we'll see.

    6. Re:Just the beginning? by netsavior · · Score: 1

      This hill will be built by civil engineers, not climatologists.

      The hill will be built by civil engineers while climatologists sit at their desks with their feet up.

  6. idiocy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the global olygarchy will do anything to keep burning oil -and the planet-

  7. ask the pyramid builders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe now you know why they built them. Big mystery. On the Yucatan Peninsula there were (are) large water collection wells below them.
    Scientists swear twas so they could use the limestone monoliths as collectors of rain since there were no nearby streams or rivers.
    Makes sense to me.

    1. Re: ask the pyramid builders by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Too bad the Egyptians didn't leave any written record on why they built the pyramids. Oh wait. They did.

  8. They seem to have forgotten by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    'If the mountain will not come to Muhammad, then Muhammad must go to the mountain.'

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:They seem to have forgotten by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Soviet Muslims?

    2. Re:They seem to have forgotten by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Except that Muhammad can't walk anymore, so the mountain has to stop whining and haul ass now.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  9. See Larry Niven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not a mountain it's a giant impact crater in the ringworld.

  10. Removing mountain tops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I recall reading years ago that extensive mining on an eastern USA mountain range had removed the tops of the mountains, thus changing the weather pattern and causing rain clouds to pass right over and drop elsewhere. It might have been the Ozarks, Allegheny or some other mountain range (I'n not from the USA, please excuse my lack of knowledge here).

    1. Re:Removing mountain tops by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Probably West Virginia. More mountainous, on average, than Colorado (it's just not sitting on top of a one-to-two-mile-thick plateau).

    2. Re:Removing mountain tops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Dude Fire changed the weather pattern in Northern AZ around Payson according to a few people I talked with there.

    3. Re:Removing mountain tops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > causing rain clouds to pass right over

      No, it was the other way around. Those Republicans caused more flooding by removing our mountains:

      http://appvoices.org/end-mountaintop-removal/community/

    4. Re:Removing mountain tops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks responders, the Appalachians were the mountains I recall reading about.

    5. Re:Removing mountain tops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Although the Appalachians do have *some* impact on the weather, they don't dominate the climate there like the Sierras. My guess is that silting of river systems with toxic tailings is the biggest problem, followed by the destruction of the scenery and healthy forest ecosystems at the actual mine site. IMHO, mountaintop removal isn't on a large enough scale to impact weather except on a very local scale similar to the "heat island" effect you get with a city; but if you've got a citation I'm all ears..

  11. The Republicans should pay for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    since they created global warming.

    1. Re:The Republicans should pay for it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Al Gore created global warming, so the Democrats must pay for the mountain.

  12. President Trump's brilliant plan to address climat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    o i see..President Trump's brilliant plan to address climate change. http://www.paowinwash.com/home...

  13. Real Life Imitates The Onion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Old news. I read an article about that in 2010.
    http://www.theonion.com/article/dubai-debt-crisis-halts-building-of-worlds-largest-2886

  14. UAE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Amiga Emulator wants to build what?

  15. going for the record by reemul · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sounds more like the UAE is jealous of Qatar's single project death-toll record for the World Cup and is determined to take the crown. The ads are probably already going out in Malaysia, Indonesia, and the Philippines for the sorts of disposable slave labor the region favors for large civil projects.

    --
    You're just jealous 'cuz the voices talk to *me*
    1. Re:going for the record by doconnor · · Score: 1

      It would be hard to beat the Panama Canal at 27,000.

    2. Re:going for the record by netsavior · · Score: 1

      that was before we had liberal arts colleges, so it doesn't count.

    3. Re:going for the record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the reports of Qatar's death-toll record for the world cup are nonsense.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33019838

  16. Yeah right, to "improve rainfall" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like the UAE TBTB's secret mountain lair!

  17. don't just build a hill - lower the ocean as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are they going to get material to pile up to build the mountain? If they dredge it from the ocean bottom, that creates empty volume to be occupied by water, lowering the sea level by a likely infinitesimal amount but equivalent to several square miles of coastal land remaining dry. And if the material is dredged at a lower latitude, where the earth's velocity of rotation is higher, the net effect will be to speed up the earth's rotation by shifting angular momentum to a smaller radius. Apply all this on a large enough scale and it could have positive environmental effects.

  18. "assimilation, so we are doing a spread" by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    WTF did I just read?

  19. Tornadoes? by mspring · · Score: 1

    How about shaping terrain to guide tornadoes on a specific path?

    1. Re:Tornadoes? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      You mean, filling the ocean? My goodness sir, that sounds even more feasible than building a mountain! Truth to be told, islands have been built before, but entire continents?

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    2. Re:Tornadoes? by mspring · · Score: 1

      Ocean? I said terrain.

    3. Re:Tornadoes? by CanadianMacFan · · Score: 1

      Bah, that's easy. Just set up a series of trailer parks.

  20. Possible solution to the CRT crisis by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    Remember when you proudly acquired your first bigscreen? You gave the old CRT set away to a thrift. A year or tw later, you replaced the bedroom set and the guest room set. What you found then is that charities no longer take working CRTs, and neither do landfills. Neither do recycling centers, even those special electronics days they have periodically. You can't throw a CRT away.

    The garages of America can supply the "bricks" for the UAE's mountain. This is a business opportunity waiting.

    1. Re:Possible solution to the CRT crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't throw a CRT away.

      You don't, you give them to a gamer. Fighting game pros and retro enthusiasts will thank you.

    2. Re:Possible solution to the CRT crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same AC, but approaching from a different angle: Why not start with the materials currently lying around landfills? Plastics, Metals etc for the 'rock-like' layers, and decomposing organics for the top fill?

    3. Re:Possible solution to the CRT crisis by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      If you have a fine old Eizo monitor that still has some life left in it, but what about all those plain broadcast TV sets?

    4. Re:Possible solution to the CRT crisis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean?
      Woods are littered with old CRT-s, so yeah, you can throw them away nicely. Point is, some people dont want to litter.

  21. Why not stop selling fossil fuels? by plopez · · Score: 1

    Nip the problem in the bud.

    If that isn't gosh golly gee wiz shiny tech for hyou then how about:
    1) set up solar panels and wind turbines
    2) use to power desalination plants
    3) take said water and split it into hydrogen and oxygen
    4) burn hydrogen fuel to power irrigation pumps to take the waste water from the combustion and extra water from desalinization and pumpit in land
    5) use said water for reforestation.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:Why not stop selling fossil fuels? by Socguy · · Score: 1

      Why add the step of creating hydrogen? Just run your process during the day using electricity.

    2. Re:Why not stop selling fossil fuels? by plopez · · Score: 1

      Sounds low tech.

      --
      putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  22. Nope, it ends in War by s.petry · · Score: 4, Interesting

    UAE creates man made mountain to grab rainfall. Every other country "close" will blame them for any change in rainfall and at least some of that is going to be legitimate. Impact from this is going to be felt far and wide, so anywhere between India, Italy, and Russia are potentially impacted. It is not far fetched that a country that used to be able to feed itself suddenly has a starving populace because they no longer get any rain.

    Every country in the World threatens war over weather modification, and there are numerous countries that have long sought to master weather control for the purpose of war. UAE's intent may not be to harm neighbors but that's not always how things work out.

    If the UAE was building desalination plants to irrigate with, it would be a very different story.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:Nope, it ends in War by dave420 · · Score: 1

      If only there was some methodology that could be applied to understand the effects of things. Maybe the methodology could involve other people reviewing the findings and making suggestions based on demonstrable evidence... Naah. The mighty S. Petry, Senior Sage doesn't make mistakes.

    2. Re:Nope, it ends in War by Fudoka · · Score: 1

      +1 - frighteningly dangerous thing to do in the Middle East.

    3. Re:Nope, it ends in War by Keybounce · · Score: 1

      Why does that sound like the plot of Alpha Centauri? The game from Sid?

  23. misleading title by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    a proper title would be "UAE Investigating The Possibility Of Constructing An Artificial Mountain" because they will likely find out it's far more costly than they expected.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  24. Get with the program by Sperbels · · Score: 1

    Moisture vaporators

  25. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You have got to be kidding.

    A quadratic function (or polynomial of degree two) is indeed on the form you specified.

    But x to the 2nd power is not exponential, rather it's just an example of the quadratic function you mentioned, with b and c equal to zero and a equal to one.

    f(x) = ax^2 + bx + c, which with a = 1, b = 0 and c = 0 becomes f(x) = x^2, which is quadratic and the same as "x to the 2nd power"

    What IS exponential, is something like 2 to the xth power, or 2^x. But that's not what you wrote.

  26. One of today's jokes: by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Hey!!! I know a guy who will do it for only $3 per cubic yard. Why pay $1.5 trillion? How about merely $238 billion?

    But wait! There's more! I was talking with a guy who would be happy to sell the UAE the entire Mt. Rainier in Washington State for, oh, maybe $10,000. Then there would be the easy problem of moving it.

    1. Re:One of today's jokes: by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Hey!!! I know a guy who will do it for only $3 per cubic yard. Why pay $1.5 trillion? How about merely $238 billion?

      But wait! There's more! I was talking with a guy who would be happy to sell the UAE the entire Mt. Rainier in Washington State for, oh, maybe $10,000. Then there would be the easy problem of moving it.

      They should had bought Alaska while it was for sale.

  27. How much taller than 1900 meters? by John.Banister · · Score: 5, Informative

    When I thought of this at first, I thought that the idea with a mountain is to chill the air, and there may be easier ways. Then, I thought desalination is going to be cheaper to make water than refrigerating the air, are they afraid they'll run out of sea water? But, sea levels rise with global warming, and my first impression of UAE was that it's pretty flat, so I thought, maybe they also want some artificial high ground to which they can retreat. Before commenting on that, though, I asked Google, what is the highest point in UAE? It turns out that Jabal Al Jais (over on the Eastern point, by Oman) is 1910 meters tall, and the satellite view shows that it doesn't have a wet side. Hawaii is closer to the equator, and mountains that are less tall have a wet side. This leads me to strongly think that the air may not be the best available resource for getting potable water. I'd try desalination of the stuff in which the artificial islands are built.

    1. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters? by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      When I thought of this at first, I thought that the idea with a mountain is to chill the air, and there may be easier ways. Then, I thought desalination is going to be cheaper to make water than refrigerating the air, are they afraid they'll run out of sea water? But, sea levels rise with global warming, and my first impression of UAE was that it's pretty flat, so I thought, maybe they also want some artificial high ground to which they can retreat. Before commenting on that, though, I asked Google, what is the highest point in UAE? It turns out that Jabal Al Jais (over on the Eastern point, by Oman) is 1910 meters tall, and the satellite view shows that it doesn't have a wet side. Hawaii is closer to the equator, and mountains that are less tall have a wet side. This leads me to strongly think that the air may not be the best available resource for getting potable water. I'd try desalination of the stuff in which the artificial islands are built.

      build the mountain out of salt blocks from the water desalination process.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      This leads me to strongly think that the air may not be the best available resource for getting potable water. I'd try desalination of the stuff in which the artificial islands are built.

      Over the course of a thousand years, I think a mountain would be more efficient.

    3. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters? by John.Banister · · Score: 1

      There's been a 6000 foot mountain there for a thousand years. Check it out with the Google satellite view. It's dry.

    4. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have been mountain biking on that mountain, and it is bone dry. Not a spec of green anywhere.

    5. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters? by Gussington · · Score: 1

      Yes and have a fruit tree that bears no fruit, that doesn't mean I can't plant another and get a different result.

    6. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Won't they dissolve in any rain they produce, salt poisoning their surroundings?

  28. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    X to the 2nd power is exponential.

    No. X^2 does not increase exponentially with X. It is not "exponential" in any meaningful sense. Would you say that X=1 is "exponential" with an exponent of zero?

    When mathematicians, or algorithm designers, say something is "exponential", they mean it is a function with the variable of interest (in this case, the height of the hill) in the exponent. The volume of a hill, as a function of its height, is NOT exponential.

  29. glass dome by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Seriously, if they are going this route, just build a glass dome. It would be much cheaper and easier to control the environment.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:glass dome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah they have a ready supply of sand that's for sure.

  30. Modern day Pyramids! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an amazing goal at hand and I am happy to be alive during the time where they are actually looking at making the Pyramids version 2.0!

    Captcha: Majestic

  31. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by goodmanj · · Score: 3, Funny

    What about zero? Zero is an exponent. By that measure, my love life is improving exponentially...

  32. Pyramid by hughbar · · Score: 1

    Start building a decent sized pyramid and then, instead of stopping, carry on. Easy.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  33. What if they build it ? by DirtyFly · · Score: 1

    A mountain captures the moist that would otherwise go elsewhere, if my country scarce irrigated spots became dry and without any rain because of my neighbors new mountain I'de like to do something about it ... Cant this increase political tensions in the zone ?

    1. Re:What if they build it ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, looking at a population density map of the Middle East, mode of Saudi Arabia's population is on its Western Coast, along the Red Sea.

      There is a lot near Riyadh, but I don't know how they'd be impacted by this mountain, however I will point out that that area is called Rub' al Khali or the Empty Quarter for a reason, I doubt there's much interest in it.

  34. They'll be too busy giving handjobs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For smugness points to giva a fuck about slaves in the UAE. As long as they get their moral self licensing, they couldn't care less how many dead it's built on.

    Get ready for world cup!!!

  35. "Exponential" shows a problem of making mountains. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    You drifted away from the point. The original point was that those who are planning to build a mountain are not sufficiently aware of the enormous land area of the base.

  36. Re:"Exponential" shows a problem of making mountai by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try at deflecting the fact that you were wrong about the exponent. And if you think they know less than you about building this thing then you're probably wrong again.

  37. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by KGIII · · Score: 1

    There are some things you just learn to ignore. One of those things is the horrible misuses the word "exponentially" suffers. It's along the same line as "literally" which has, somehow, come to mean the same as "figuratively."

    Hmm...

    I have seen an exponential increase in the misuse of the expression! Just smile and nod, literally.

    I'm going to hell, if there is one. ;-)

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  38. Re: Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll never build a mountain with that attitude! Keep digging!

  39. Irrigation by xSander · · Score: 1

    Even though rainfall could certainly partly tackle the ever-hotter weather, might it not be better to look underground? Qanats didn't hurt Iran in the long term.

  40. No no no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be much cheaper to blast big ass rivers with nukes and then collect the sweet evaporating fresh water for use..

  41. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    The volume of a hill, as a function of its height, is NOT exponential

    It is if you make the width an exponential function of the height!

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  42. No, no they are not by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    They may build a big hill and declare victory, though.

    In the process, a great deal of essentially slave labor will die.

    At the end, they will have a big dirty hill that accomplishes nothing.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  43. Garbage dump by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    The garbage mountain on E66 outside Dubai is well on its way already.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  44. Doesn’t have to be solid all the way through by Theovon · · Score: 2

    They want something that *functions* as a mountain. It doesn’t have to look like a regular mountain, and it doesn’t have to be solid all the way through. As someone else said, a wall might do the trick. And also, the structure could be hollow. Build a steel frame and cover it with inexpensive materials. As long as it has the desired effect, it doesn’t have to look like a mountain. And just imagine the uses that could be put to the interior as well. You could have an entire city in there in the shade. Presumably it would have to be mostly airtight, but if you made it out of translucent materials, then the amount of artificial light inside needn’t be extensive. Imagine a mountain made of plexiglass. Also, for something the size of a mountain, moisture would collect in the inner atmosphere, develop into clouds, and even rain sometimes. If the air inside is cooler than outside, they might want to limit air exchange (i.e. no active ventilation), requring that plants be grown inside to keep the oxygen levels up. Even pollution levels could be kept down if burning is kept to a minimum (no diesel or coal generators inside, but maybe short hydrocarbons like natural gas for cooking, if they even have a supply of it in there).

    I’m sure there are a million caveats I’ll never think of, but if they’re going to build something that big, they might as well make it more useful than just a wall and even possibly make it give a return on the investment through taxes. It would require maintenance.

  45. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. Quintessential internet pedant. All caps used in addition to being entirely wrong. Exponential as used by the original poster is entirely correct. There are numerous examples where exponential is used this way. Exponential rate does not mean an exponential function. Nuclear decay is exponential but there is no variable in the exponent. Simply put exponential rate and exponential function are two different things. In algorithms as well.

  46. Re:Doesn’t have to be solid all the way thro by netsavior · · Score: 1

    A steel frame the size of a mountain would probably cost 1,000x more than a mountain of dirt and rocks.

    What you are talking about is building a Burj Khalifa times 100. No small feat.

  47. a lot of hot air by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Thanks for the analysis.

    > What to use as a lifting gas would be a big question. Helium ... Hydrogen ... Methane

    UAE has a plentiful supply of hot air. If the fabric/skin were black, it may well keep the air hot enough.

  48. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an easy mistake to make, and I got called out for it once. In nontechnical fields, "exponential growth" just means "growth faster than a linear progression". Anyone with >highschool maths, however, should know that exponential != geometric != quadratic.

    x^2 and 2^x look really similar for small values of x: 1v2 / 4v4 / 9v8 / 16v16 but quickly diverge, and by the 32nd term: 1024v4294967296

    Any relation with x^(some power) is geometric, and ANY geometric series (no matter how high the power) will eventually get it's ass kicked by little ol' 2^x for large enough values of X.

  49. Interesting Idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should use WorldEdit. It will go faster and they won't be harrassed by creepers, zombies and skeletons.

  50. Trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should plant them. Lots.

  51. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

    Letting people get away with using the word "exponential" as a figurative description of increase is common, but when people use that word in the strict mathematical sense and incorrectly state that x^2 is exponential . . well, that's a different matter entirely.

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
  52. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by donaggie03 · · Score: 1

    In a nuclear, or radioactive, decay formula, the variable that is in the exponent is t, for time. What are these other "numerous" examples you speak of?

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
  53. Evil by dasgoober · · Score: 1

    Sounds like they're planning to build a giant Evil Knievel ramp.

  54. Raise Land by q4Fry · · Score: 1

    First they need to research Environmental Economics

  55. Calling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slartibartfast. Where are you?

  56. A very good idea to build zero maintence projects by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    My suggestion to all the oil countries is to spend their money on zero or low maintenance projects when it comes to the super fundamentals such as water and electricity. There will be a day when fossil oil goes the way of the whale oil industry. At that point these countries will have large populations who need electricity, water, roads, and hopefully agriculture.

    Therefore it would be a good investment to have inefficiently (today) built up an infrastructure that can sustain them post oil wealth. Step one would be to build something that keeps people alive. Step two would be to continue to keep expanding it so that people might even thrive post oil.

    The key is that it be designed so that its ongoing costs are minimal. Not just a huge white elephant that can't be maintained the moment the oil runs out.

  57. BAD! by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    If they think hot is bad they obviously haven't experienced heat and high humidity. I also wonder if creating lakes and canals might not be better than trying to build mountains. Or they could create waterfalls down the sides of buildings if they really want cooling and are willing to take on the humidity. They certainly have enough solar energy at hand to pump quite a bit of water to the tops of buildings.

  58. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by alva_edison · · Score: 1

    Letting people get away with using the word "exponential" as a figurative description of increase is common, but when people use that word in the strict mathematical sense and incorrectly state that x^2 is exponential . . well, that's a different matter entirely.

    I remember getting in an argument with someone who felt that using the word exponential to describe an expected 3% growth per annum was hyperbole. I tried to point out that it met the literal definition, since the function was 1.03^x, but they wouldn't believe me.

    --
    He effected a bored affect.
  59. Don't just build a mountain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Build a city under the mountain. Seriously. Not so serious, become king under the mountain.

  60. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by Lost+Race · · Score: 1

    X to the 2nd power is exponential.

    No. X^2 does not increase exponentially with X.

    But it does increase exponentially with 2, which is clearly what he meant. For large values of 2, X^2 is HUGE!

  61. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters?https://www.go by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    If you have a fruit tree in Ras al Basit that bears no fruit, you might want to plant another tree. If you have a fruit tree in Qatrun that bears no fruit, you might want to find a different location for planting fruit trees. The rain that falls on mountains comes from moisture in the air. If the moisture is there, the rain will fall. If you see a big mountain and rain does not fall, this is a pretty clear indication that the moisture isn't there.

    UAE has access to large amounts of sea water, large amounts of carbon and of methane (inside hydrocarbons). As it turns out a carbon product, graphene, is really efficient at desalination. UAE could build the world's biggest graphene factory and use some of that graphene to make lots of fresh water. The rest of the graphene could be used for the ninety zillion other fantastical miraculous things that graphene does amazingly well.

  62. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters?https://www.go by Gussington · · Score: 1

    The rain that falls on mountains comes from moisture in the air. If the moisture is there, the rain will fall. If you see a big mountain and rain does not fall, this is a pretty clear indication that the moisture isn't there.

    Or that the mountain is in the wrong place, or the wrong shape, or not tall enough.
    Moisture exists in the troposphere at various altitudes, so clearly the problem is that the current mountain is simply too short.

  63. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters?https://www.go by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    Cool, so how much taller than 1900 meters?

  64. I thought this was a joke when I read it. by jaymemaurice · · Score: 1

    I lived in the UAE for a couple years. There is a mountain in AlAin and mountains up in the Fujeriah/Musandam area... but the real reason I thought this was a joke is because the infrastructure there is not designed to handle rain. Whenever it rains, cars wreck and overturn due to poor road drainage and ceilings collapse - see the AbuDhabi airport as an example. That's why I thought it was a joke... not that building a mountain is impossible or anything. They are well on their way to making a trash mountain between Sharjah and Dubai... if they could just convince people not to litter on the streets it would already be complete.

    --
    120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
  65. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters?https://www.go by Gussington · · Score: 1

    No idea. But based on other mountains that have regular snow on them, probably upwards of 3000 metres.

  66. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters?https://www.go by John.Banister · · Score: 1

    I looked around a little, and for a granite mountain, you probably don't want a height to width ratio of more than 2.5:1 Given this ratio, and that the smallest mountain of that height would be a cone, then we can do a little math. The volume of a cone is (1/3)*pi*r**2*h where r is half the width of the mountain at the base and h is the height. With the above ratio, r = h/5, so you have volume = (1/75)*pi*h**3 So for the smallest 3000 metre mountain, only 1.13 cubic kilometres of granite. With lower strength rocks, you'd probably want a wider base, or perhaps, with semi-autonomous solar powered lasers, you could build a sintered mountain of glass. If people wanted to live inside the sintered glass mountain, you could then have some fun calculating the necessary exclusions to provide the appropriate infrastructure (air, water & sewage pipes & pumping stations, power conduit, living spaces, human transit spaces, etc) versus the necessary quantity of unexcluded material to provide structural strength to see how many people could safely make their home in the glass mountain. Then, with a cross sectional design, you could start the planet's biggest 3-D printing project so far.

  67. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Exponential rate does not mean an exponential function. In algorithms as well.
    Are you retarded, or just pretending?
    Exponential rate always means exponential function.
    Otherwise it would be cubic, or quadratic growth for example, or polynomial.

  68. Re:Exponential: Exponent=2. Big laugh. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    If zero is the exponent for your love life, then you do have one. Exactly one.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  69. Re:How much taller than 1900 meters?https://www.go by Gussington · · Score: 1

    So for the smallest 3000 metre mountain, only 1.13 cubic kilometres of granite.

    That sounds like a lot, but if you're getting thousands of years of benefit from it, effectively free after the initial outlay, it might be viable.
    Just googled some mining operations for comparison (since no-one really builds mountains), and some of them are moving half a million tons of stuff a day. So if my maths is right that's about 6 years worth of material from a large a mine.

  70. Salt Lake would be better by rhyous · · Score: 1

    A nice sized salt lake would be better. Pump in ocean water. You don't have to desalinate it. The sun and heat will evaporate the water into the air and create more rain all around the area. Plus the water will seep into the ground, which will filter out most the salt and increase the ground water.