Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by cat2only, Sep 17, 2007.
Don't worry about that I have the information on that.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Ha! You expect me to accept THAT as answer?!?!?!?:bugeye:
You've just totally destroyed ANY credibility (which wasn't much to begin with!) you could ever have had here. That's the poorest excuse for "I don't know" that I've ever seen or heard. Sheesh!
4 trillion acording to this article. Still way more expensive than the tunnels.
Ask this fella. He crunched some numbers for me about the tunnels!
And I suppose you think there no difference between that 4 trillion and the 13 trillion you said, eh? Right!
And what could you possibly base the cost of your tunnels on? Just more aimless thinking like there's no difference between 4 and 13 trillion I suppose?
So you think 20 billion is still greater than 4 trillion?
Actually, I think you don't even have a clue as to the scale you're talking about or any of the costs involved. Because of that, I think your $20 billion figure is nothing more than pure imagination.
Really? And just how experienced is he in structural engineering and cost-analysis? I see nothing there about his credentials. Exactly what is his background supposed to be? Climatologist? Meteorologist? What?
I see nothing apparent as to why I should accept his numbers as being reliable.
I seem to have missed the relation to solving our global warming problems...
I'd like to see the calculations on energy that you mentioned in the OP!
I think seeding the oceans with Iron is a better and cheaper solution...but interesting thinking.
During cooling stage the tunnels remove 26 trillion BTUs from the SSTs per/day.However, this can be regulated.
Why thank you joepistole. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The Gulf Stream will move the same heat from the equator to the poles no matter how warm the initial temperature is.
If your plan is implemented, it would result in a shutdown of the thermohaline current and in the winter, the Atlantic would freeze over. Here's why. The thermohaline current is driven by the sinking of dense, saltier water. Presently, the water is fairly warm, lending itself to evaporation. If the water carrying heat from the south is cooler, it will evaporate less, which means it will be fresher, less salty, and it wouldn't sink as it had in the past. The current would shut down, and England would become as cold as Siberia.
Not cooling the stream that much it gets much cooler than what the tunnels will do in the winter time by at least ten degrees. Does the stream stop it's flow during winter time when the water is at 60 degrees? No! Anyways, the temperature can be regulated between 70 - 90 degrees if needed.
If you change the temperature at all, it will be reflected in the evaporation rates in the north, thus affecting the current.
Cat2, I see you still haven't answered my question about the guy's qualifications that you said did those calculations for you. I'd like an answer AND a post of the actual computations. At this point, both seem to be completely bogus.
I think I would sooner invest in the space elevator.
Uh!! Former director of HRD seems good enough for me. That's why I went to him along with the present director of HRD. You have better credentials?:shrug::shrug:http://www.fiu.edu/~willough/PUBS/HEW_home.htm http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Marks/marks_bio.html
Why don't you make a small model with real water to prove the concept?
Separate names with a comma.