Tunnels Reverse Global Warming And Weaken Hurricanes

spidergoat said:
The ice is melting due to increased air temperatures, which would not be affected by this scheme.
Click to expand...

Thats exactly what the tunnels do is lower air temps. by displacing most all the fossil fuels along with upwelling cooler waters from the oceans depths.
 
You sure about that here is an example:

Enough to supply the USA with electrical power many times over! ~ 3.050 Million Megawatts!



Since you need volume to get your answer, I made the assumption that the water is also 100 ft long. Kinetic Energy equals (1/2)m*v^2 so we got .5*299,025,900,000kg*(8.941 m/s)^2 = 149,512,950,000kg*79.941(m^2/s^2) = 11,952,214,735,950 joules.

BTW, thats for the entire 100 ft. So over the 100 ft, your 100 ft tall and 20 mile wide wall of water exerts nearly 12 trillion joules. If you want watts find out how long it took to go that 100 ft in seconds and divide the joules by that time. Then you have joules/second which equals watts. And watts can easily be converted into mega watts.
 
Last edited:
cat2only said:
Pascal says any pressure differential within an enclosed system where energy is conserved a flow will occur!

I can't explain it any better than Pascal does.Sorry.:shrug:
Click to expand...

Ha! Nice try - but it's not going to work! I never asked you about Pascal and you know it - now answer the questions I put to you directly and forget the childish attemtp to sidestep.:bugeye:
 
Read-Only said:
Ha! Nice try - but it's not going to work! I never asked you about Pascal and you know it - now answer the questions I put to you directly and forget the childish attemtp to sidestep.:bugeye:
Click to expand...

I can't explain it any better than Pascal does.Sorry.
 
cat2only said:
I can't explain it any better than Pascal does.Sorry.
Click to expand...

You are being silly and obstinate - you know very well what questions I mean. Do you want me to embarrass you by posting them in the wide open again for everyone else to see? They show you to be very foolish - but I will if you try to avoid them just one more time.
 
Read-Only said:
You are being silly and obstinate - you know very well what questions I mean. Do you want me to embarrass you by posting them in the wide open again for everyone else to see? They show you to be very foolish - but I will if you try to avoid them just one more time.
Click to expand...


Pascal says any pressure differential within an enclosed system where energy is conserved a flow will occur!

I can't explain that any better can you?
 
cat2only said:
Pascal says any pressure differential within an enclosed system where energy is conserved a flow will occur!

I can't explain that any better can you?
Click to expand...

OK, I was very kind and generous and gave you SEVERAL chances to respond. Since you choose instead to try and act dumb about it, I'll list them out for you (and everyone else) to show the inconsistencies of claims you've made. Ready? Here they come:

1. In one post you say this: "I need to find some fine university to computer model this for me.
I also know it is not a silly idea due to the fact Pascal's principle and Bernoulli principles work very well in this case. Any of you fine people here know of a University that may be interested?"

Yet in another post you say about your friend in Florida: "His excuse was NOAA is not funded for it even though he did it, anyways."

So which is it? It's been modeled or not? You've clearly said both.

2. About the coral reef decline. In one post, you included a quote which listed the causes of that:
"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 "

And when I pointed out that increased temperature was only ONE of the causes and reducing that would do nothing about the others, you responded with your childish name-calling post: "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!"

But you never answered the question at all. Do so now!

There are others that I will get to later but let's see you answer these first before moving along.
 
Last edited:
Read-Only said:
OK, I was very kind and generous and gave you SEVERAL chances to respond. Since you choose instead to try and act dumb about it, I'll list them out for you (and everyone else) to show the inconsistencies of claims you've made. Ready? Here they come:

1. In one post you say this: "I need to find some fine university to computer model this for me.
I also know it is not a silly idea due to the fact Pascal's principle and Bernoulli principles work very well in this case. Any of you fine people here know of a University that may be interested?"

Yet in another post you say about your friend in Florida: "His excuse was NOAA is not funded for it even though he did it, anyways."

So which is it? It's been modeled or not? You've clearly said both.

2. About the coral reef decline. In one post, you included a quote which listed the causes of that:
"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 "

And when I pointed out that increased temperature was only ONE of the causes and reducing that would do nothing about the others, you responded with your childish name-calling post: "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!"

But you never answered the question at all. Do so now!

There are others that I will get to later but let's see you answer these first before moving along.
Click to expand...

From a person at HRD.

1.) > > Unfortunately there is a dearth of models capable of testing
> such a
> > hypothesis. The operational models are coupled to the ocean in
> a 1-D
> > sense eliminating any advection in the ocean. Research models
> are coming
> > along that could be used to look at 3-D interactions, but they
> are so
> > new I am not sure that you could be sure the results was caused
> by the
> > changes you induce or by other issues the new models have not been
> > tested for yet. The big challenge is the ocean modeling (there
> are some
> > good research ocean models, but the issue of forcing in a
> hurricane > environment is not completely understood yet - spray,
> wave breaking,
> > etc), and then the coupling of it to the atmosphere to get the
> > appropriate feedback. We are working on that for the next
> generation > operational models, but it still a work in progress.
> I think in a few
> > years we may have such a tool ready to test your idea in a
> credible
> > manner.

So it seems as though they don't have a program to model it yet. That other person was the former director of HRD who did some calculations for me.

2.) The #1 reason for the corals decline is the warmer SSTs which the Tunnels can cool back off due to the massive upwelling they cause.The warmer temps can also cause more Pathogens that destroy the corals which the Tunnels can also prevent.They also can prevent the red tide.
 
Cat2
Glad to see you are holding your own against the bullying and patronising you are being subjected to. I just hope that you stay with us and are not tempted to move somewhere else. You clearly have a good mind and are not a loony. Though if you have a good mind and are also a loony you are also welcome as far as I am concerned.


btw
Do you think that these pipelines are:
i A future source for energy
ii A solution for the Global Warming problem
 
Chris Cremin said:
Cat2
Glad to see you are holding your own against the bullying and patronising you are being subjected to. I just hope that you stay with us and are not tempted to move somewhere else. You clearly have a good mind and are not a loony. Though if you have a good mind and are also a loony you are also welcome as far as I am concerned.


btw
Do you think that these pipelines are:
i A future source for energy
ii A solution for the Global Warming problem
Click to expand...

Thanks for the kind words Cris Cremin. I'll let Pascal and Bernoulli do the work for me.The same principles that make airplanes fly will also make the tunnels work.

i A future source for energy ? YES
ii A solution for the Global Warming problem? YES and so much more.:)
 
It doesn't sound so weird when they say it, but it's one of those ideas like a space elevator, or Freeman Dyson's nuclear bomb-powered spaceship- impractical and probably never going to happen. Still, like Chris said, I do appreciate your ideas, cat2only. I might be critical of them, but nothing personal.
 
matthyaouw said:
I think your idea's been nicked ;)
http://environment.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12698&feedId=online-news_rss20
Click to expand...

Now that is a neat idea, also. However, it is different than my idea. This idea doesn't use the Gulfsteam current to upwell the water is uses the wave action with a check valve in line.
The tunnels generate an enormous amount of electrical power while these pipelines don't. They do nothing to offset the fossil fuels we are already burning. They are not deep enough to tap into the cooler waters at depth. They would have to be at least 1000 feet or so. Remember, the fuel for any hurricane is the 300-400 foot warm thermal surface layer which may only change by two or three degrees.They would have to change SSTs by about 4 degrees in the Gulfstream to restore the Arctic Ice.They do not work at all when the ocean is calm unlike my tunnels do which can work 24/7 if needed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top