-3
$\begingroup$

This question already has an answer here:

Sounds crazy i know, but hear me out there are place's all over the universe with ice glaciers much bigger then what we can even imagine on earth.

So what if he build a Tower in the middle of Antartica where temperatures would never raise higher then 28 degrees (freezing point of salt water) we could make it any thickness and the most of materials would be much cheaper then anythings.

if anything happened it would be in the middle of no where and wouldn't be able to hurt anyone. also since no one owns Antartica it would be a mutual interest for ever country to invest into.

with all of that it may also help with countries that have raising sea level problems and would lower the sea around the globe.

$\endgroup$

marked as duplicate by sammy gerbil, Gert, user108787, John Rennie homework-and-exercises Aug 17 '16 at 9:13

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Ice is not strong enough to do such a thing. $\endgroup$ – tfb Aug 16 '16 at 22:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ related question (possible duplicate): physics.stackexchange.com/q/43877/26969 $\endgroup$ – Floris Aug 16 '16 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ @peterh "build out of" is perfectly good idiom - says the non-native English speaker... $\endgroup$ – Floris Aug 16 '16 at 22:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Floris Ok, thx! $\endgroup$ – user259412 Aug 16 '16 at 22:19
  • $\begingroup$ @Floris Yes, it's fine: 'build x out of y' is fine for me, although I would find 'build x from y' slightly preferable. (Native UK (indeed home counties / public school) English speaker, hence comment). $\endgroup$ – tfb Aug 16 '16 at 23:39
1
$\begingroup$

If we just look at the mechanics and logistics, the obvious biggest challenge would be lifting the ice to the height/altitude required. Other materials would be much easier to work with. The strength to weight ratio would be a governing factor. At 0.43 psi for each foot of height, the compressive forces would quickly overcome the compressive strength of the ice. If the ice could be an ice/saw dust wood fiber concrete (Pycrete), the strength would increase by a factor of 2.2 but still not be enough. You would also be limited to the equipment/materials than can work in those cold temperatures. Transporting the energy required to power the equipment and systems would also be a problem. The stacked ice would make no difference in global sea levels.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You give no evidence for the statement "the stacked ice would make no difference..." - doesn't that depend on the size of the base? Melting ice caps (Greenland, Antarctic) do make a difference - why wouldn't building a big (wide) tower? $\endgroup$ – Floris Aug 17 '16 at 4:14
  • $\begingroup$ The amount of ice that would be required to make a difference in sea levels would be beyond any ability to be stacked. Greenland and Antarctica have thousands of square miles of ice with Antarctica's ice cap miles thick. It would take 360,000 cubic kilometers of ice to change sea levels by 1 meter. 10,000 cubic kilometers to change it by one inch (2.5 cm) A base of one square kilometer would have to have to be 10,000 kilometers high to make a one inch change. If the base was 2 km x 2 km, it would need to be 2500 kilometers high. People need to learn to double check the numbers tossed around. $\endgroup$ – Mark G Aug 18 '16 at 15:45
  • $\begingroup$ my point was that no numbers had been tossed about - and that the question "can the ice in a tower make a difference" cannot be answered without fist asking "what tower". I would argue that the ice caps of Antarctica and of Greenland are a "tower" because of their height. $\endgroup$ – Floris Aug 18 '16 at 16:01

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.