Tunnels Reverse Global Warming And Weaken Hurricanes

Tunnels prevent this:

Rising Seas Predicted to Overtake U.S. Coasts Within a Century
Saturday , September 22, 2007

ADVERTISEMENTUltimately, rising seas will likely swamp the first American settlement in Jamestown, Va., as well as the Florida launch pad that sent the first American into orbit, many climate scientists are predicting.

In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.

Global warming — through a combination of melting glaciers, disappearing ice sheets and warmer waters expanding — is expected to cause oceans to rise by one meter, or about 39 inches. It will happen regardless of any future actions to curb greenhouse gases, several leading scientists say. And it will reshape the nation.

Rising waters will lap at the foundations of old money Wall Street and the new money towers of Silicon Valley. They will swamp the locations of big city airports and major interstate highways.

Storm surges worsened by sea level rise will flood the waterfront getaways of rich politicians — the Bushes' Kennebunkport and John Edwards' place on the Outer Banks. And gone will be many of the beaches in Texas and Florida favored by budget-conscious students on Spring Break.

That's the troubling outlook projected by coastal maps reviewed by The Associated Press. The maps, created by scientists at the University of Arizona, are based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Few of the more than two dozen climate experts interviewed disagree with the one-meter projection. Some believe it could happen in 50 years, others say 100, and still others say 150.

Sea level rise is "the thing that I'm most concerned about as a scientist," says Benjamin Santer, a climate physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California.

"We're going to get a meter and there's nothing we can do about it," said University of Victoria climatologist Andrew Weaver, a lead author of the February report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Paris. "It's going to happen no matter what — the question is when."

Sea level rise "has consequences about where people live and what they care about," said Donald Boesch, a University of Maryland scientist who has studied the issue. "We're going to be into this big national debate about what we protect and at what cost."

This week, beginning with a meeting at the United Nations on Monday, world leaders will convene to talk about fighting global warming. At week's end, leaders will gather in Washington with President Bush.

Experts say that protecting America's coastlines would run well into the billions and not all spots could be saved.

And it's not just a rising ocean that is the problem. With it comes an even greater danger of storm surge, from hurricanes, winter storms and regular coastal storms, Boesch said. Sea level rise means higher and more frequent flooding from these extreme events, he said.

All told, one meter of sea level rise in just the lower 48 states would put about 25,000 square miles under water, according to Jonathan Overpeck, director of the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth at the University of Arizona. That's an area the size of West Virginia.

The amount of lost land is even greater when Hawaii and Alaska are included, Overpeck said.

The Environmental Protection Agency's calculation projects a land loss of about 22,000 square miles. The EPA, which studied only the Eastern and Gulf coasts, found that Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Texas and South Carolina would lose the most land. But even inland areas like Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia also have slivers of at-risk land, according to the EPA.

This past summer's flooding of subways in New York could become far more regular, even an everyday occurrence, with the projected sea rise, other scientists said. And New Orleans' Katrina experience and the daily loss of Louisiana wetlands — which serve as a barrier that weakens hurricanes — are previews of what's to come there.

Florida faces a serious public health risk from rising salt water tainting drinking water wells, said Joel Scheraga, the EPA's director of global change research. And the farm-rich San Joaquin Delta in California faces serious salt water flooding problems, other experts said.

"Sea level rise is going to have more general impact to the population and the infrastructure than almost anything else that I can think of," said S. Jeffress Williams, a U.S. Geological Survey coastal geologist in Woods Hole, Mass.

Even John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case.

Williams says it's "not unreasonable at all" to expect that much in 100 years. "We've had a third of a meter in the last century."

The change will be a gradual process, one that is so slow it will be easy to ignore for a while.

"It's like sticking your finger in a pot of water on a burner and you turn the heat on, Williams said. "You kind of get used to it."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297721,00.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tunnels restore the corals.

Fish disappear from stressed Philippines coral reefs

MANILA, Sept 24 (AFP) Sep 24, 2007
Fish species are fast disappearing from Philippine waters as delicate coral reefs, some of the biggest in the world, are destroyed in the archipelago, environmentalists warned Monday.
International marine watchdog group Reef Check painted a devastating picture of the condition of the reefs, which are being damaged and killed by coral bleaching, natural disasters and poor fishing practices.

Only five percent of the reefs -- which shelter and provide food for a vast number of marine species -- are still in pristine condition, it said.

"Philippine coral reefs are in a really bad situation," Domingo Ochavillo, country manager for Reef Check said in an interview with AFP.

Consequently populations of "highly targeted" species such as cod and groupers but also sea cucumbers, moray eels, pencil urchins, banded shrimp and giant clams are fast declining, Ochavillo said.

The watchdog is investigating the extent of coral bleaching in the Southeast Asian nation's waters. About 20 percent of reefs there were killed by bleaching from the El Nino phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean in 1998 alone, it said.

The Philippines and nearby Indonesia, another vast archipelago, account for 30 percent of the world's coral reefs, the group said.

Bleaching combined with overfishing, including using dynamite and poison, have left just 27,000 square kilometres (10,425 square miles) or five percent of the reefs in pristine condition.

"Signature species" such as groupers, the barramundi cod, and the Napoleon wrasse -- already a protected but highly sought fish -- are difficult to find even in areas far from Philippine coast lines, Ochavillo said.

Between 30 and 40 percent of the population -- or up to 35 million people -- live on the coast of the Philippines, described in one US study as the "centre of the centre" of marine biodiversity, and depend on fishing for a living.

"People have been travelling away from normal fishing grounds" in order to fill their catches, and meet the demands of the international aquarium industry, Ochavillo said.

Some coral species grow only an inch (2.54 centimetres) annually, taking years to recover once damaged. But Ochavillo said some reefs declared protected areas in the Philippines have been slowly recovering.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh, bull !!!!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Even if your silly idea would work - which it clearly won't - it would have no effect on coral bleaching, natural disasters and poor fishing practices.:bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No matter how hard you try you can not prove Pascal doesn't work in the Tunnels.There are many deep western boundry currents that have coral reefs in them in which the tunnels can work to cool SSTs thus saving the corals.What is "Oh bull"? One of your scientific principles?:shrug:

 

I don't have to prove that they DON'T work - it's up to you to prove that they do. Do you really wonder why no one wants to spend the time, effort and money modeling it for you? What excuse did your friend in Floridia give you for not doing it, eh?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please be so kind as to answer and tell us. You've TOTALLY ignored many direct questions in the past - grow up, kid and face the facts like a real adult (if you can).

Oh, and your excuse of "cooling SSTs" doesn't even come CLOSE to explaining how it would save the coral - that's just pure nonsense given the real causes for the coral's decline which you even listed in your quote and restated for you.

 

How does cooling super-sonic transports have anything to do with coral?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

His excuse was NOAA is not funded for it even though he did it, anyways. If you knew anything at all as to why the Corals are going bye bye then you wouldn't make such a stupid comment like that.:shrug::shrug: I can't prove they work Pascal already did that for me!

 

He did it anyway???? If it's been done why are you still asking for someone to do it? You're not making any sense with this.

As to the coral decline, you're the one making VERY stupid statements here. Once again, I'll quote directly from the article you yourself included in one of your posts:"International marine watchdog group Reef Check painted a devastating picture of the condition of the reefs, which are being damaged and killed by coral bleaching, natural disasters and poor fishing practices."

Now tell me who is making stupid statements? Do you not even believe a source you provided yourself????

 

Coral bleaching refers to the loss of color of corals due to stress-induced expulsion of symbiotic unicellular algae. The corals that form the structure of the great reef ecosystems of tropical seas depend on a symbiotic relationship with photosynthesizing unicellular algae called zooxanthellae that live within their tissues. Zooxanthellae give coral its particular coloration, depending on the clade living within the coral. Under stress, corals may expel their zooxantheallae, which leads to a lighter or completely white appearance, hence the term "bleached".

Coral bleaching is a vivid sign of corals responding to stress, which can be induced by any of:

increased water temperatures (often attributed to global warming[1])
starvation caused by a decline in zooplankton levels as a result of overfishing.[2]
solar irradiance (photosynthetically active radiation and ultraviolet band light),
changes in water chemistry
silt runoff
pathogen infections


Increased water temperatures. See, it is you who is making stupid statements. Now run along and troll someone else. Better yet go smoke some more of this.:m:

 

Very good! And I trust that you are smart enough to realize that increased water temperature was only ONE of the many causes listed. But you fail to see the significance of that glaring fact. In other words, simply correcting that alone will do nothing to stop all those other factors at work.:bugeye:

I don't smoke ANY of that - never have, never will. Perhaps you'v been using too much of it - sure seems like it from the way you treat facts so foolishly.

By the way, you STILL haven't explaned your self-contradictory statements about your friend running the model and still looking for someone to run the model. How do you account for that?

 

Yea #1 on the list you trolling idiot! Now get off my post and learn not to Read-Only TRY TO COMPREHEND FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I've removed the last two posts so that you might curb yourselves a little, they were going off-topic and heading to a flame ridden territory.

People should be more open to the 'Constructive' criticism given by others, it might sound like they are trying to break down some theory to prove a person wrong but in essence the theory should be able to stand up to it on it's own without the need of flame driven rhetoric.

If the OP allows this thread to spiral into flames again through their own fault (others attempting to upset them won't be counted) then this thread will be locked.

 

Regarding post number 189, you could at least credit Wikipedia with your copy and paste job. It is an important part of netiquet.

 

Now that I've reported your uncalled for rude behavior and Stryder saw it and rightfully removed the posts, I'll simply ask you again - please answer the questions I asked.

 

He's only a child, Stryder, but if he wants to swim with the big fish he's going to have to learn how to present his ideas properly and stop resorting to childish behavior. And if he cannot do that, he needs to go away for a few years and give himself time to mature more.

 

One question I have....I don't understand how flow is generated without mechanical assistance. From the way I have interpreted your design, a tunnell is suspended vertically in the ocean, with one end near the surface, and the other near the bottom. From what I interprete from your explanation, since the bottom of the tunnell is in "high pressure water" and the top is in "low pressure" water, a difference in pressure is created and an upward flow of water is achieved. Is this a correct assessment of your design, Cat?

If this is true, I just don't see how that would work. My gut and my "discovery channel" level knowledge of pressure tells me there would be no flow at all if the tunnell is filled with water.
Here's why:

The water surrounding the bottom of the tunnell has ~300 meters of water sitting on top of it and would be under that amount of pressure. Since the tunnel is also full of water, the water at the bottom of the inside of the tunnell would also have ~300 meters of water sitting on top of it. Same pressure on the outside as in the inside..no difference in pressure...no flow.

Is this right?

 

The tunnel outlet is anchored against the flow near the bottom but this is still about 1000 feet above the bottom. The tunnel exit faces away from the flow near the top. The pressure differential between the two creates the flow as Pascal states.long ago! Flow occurs because of the pressure differential between the two openings.Basically, the inlet which I call F1 is > F2 at the tunnel outlet! Pascal says any pressure differential within an enclosed system where energy is conserved a flow will occur! Therefore, Pascal's law can be interpreted as saying that any change in pressure applied at any given point of the fluid is transmitted undiminished throughout the fluid including against the walls. F1 at depth opposes the flow of the gulfstream while F2 near the surface is faced away from the gulfstream causing this pressure differential!

 

So is it pressure or the force of current that creates the flow?

 

Pressure differential!

 

Then I'm fairly sure your system has a key design flaw. If you don't believe me, just drop a garden hose into the deep end of a swimming pool and see if you get water coming out of the end. If were possible to achieve flow in a pipe just by dropping it into deep water, people would be using this technique for all kinds of applications...and the water pump business would go bankrupt.
I wish another member with expertise in this area would chime in.