I moved water uphill against gravity

[Cyclonebuster]

there's no need, we know that you can raise water by using the kinetic energy of the water itself.

 

We can change our climate by doing so if we want.

[insane_alien]

umm, no not really.

[Cyclonebuster]

umm, no not really.

 

They upwell much more cooler water than hurricanes do and are much more effective in cooling the SSTs which in turn cool the climate just as hurricanes do but quicker if we want them to.

[insane_alien]

well, the thing is, nature already does this and in far far greater quantities than we could do without spending all the money in the world(literally).

 

its a big part of the global currents.

[Cyclonebuster]

well, the thing is, nature already does this and in far far greater quantities than we could do without spending all the money in the world(literally).

 

its a big part of the global currents.

 

Nature does it uncontrolled with these we have a way to control it.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Cyclonebuster

[insane_alien]

yes, but not the ability to move a significant amount of water.

 

certainly not enough to defeat a hurricane.

[Cyclonebuster]

yes, but not the ability to move a significant amount of water.

 

certainly not enough to defeat a hurricane.

 

In seven days they can cool the Gulfstream SSTs to 70 degrees from Key West Fla. to Cape Hatteras North Carolina! Any Hurricane crossing that cooler water will weaken prior to landfall.

[insane_alien]

i think you are underestimating the scale of a hurricane.

 

a midget hurricane is classed as having a radius of about 222km. now, and its roughly the top 100m of water that provides the heat for a hurricane. so, it would be resonable to assume that we need to replace say 30% of that water with colder water from below to dissipate the hurricane.

 

now thats a tremendous amount of water (14592 cubic kilometers of water http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28pi+*+222km%29^2+*30+m ).

 

and you have to provide the energy to move that. because its safe to assume that you will be using boats to do this and they will tend to move with the water so you'll have to have the engines going and a significant velocity. not only that but you'll need a fleet of thousands to get that volume up in 7 days.

 

EDIT, just to reemphasis, that is for a VERY SMALL hurricane. the ones that don't do too much damage.

Edited September 16, 2009 by insane_alien
additional

[Cyclonebuster]

i think you are underestimating the scale of a hurricane.

 

a midget hurricane is classed as having a radius of about 222km. now, and its roughly the top 100m of water that provides the heat for a hurricane. so, it would be resonable to assume that we need to replace say 30% of that water with colder water from below to dissipate the hurricane.

 

now thats a tremendous amount of water (14592 cubic kilometers of water http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28pi+*+222km%29^2+*30+m ).

 

and you have to provide the energy to move that. because its safe to assume that you will be using boats to do this and they will tend to move with the water so you'll have to have the engines going and a significant velocity. not only that but you'll need a fleet of thousands to get that volume up in 7 days.

 

EDIT, just to reemphasis, that is for a VERY SMALL hurricane. the ones that don't do too much damage.

 

No boats at all they are anchored to the sea bed! The gulfstream flows to the North at 6mph so the amout of cooling they provide is an area 40 miles wide by 110 miles long 400 feet deep per day.

Also installed within the tunnels are hydroelectrical generators to provide electrical power along the Eastern seaboard. We can get the power in either phase of operation from the tunnels. They have a cooling phase for weather modification/power generation and a non-cooling phase just for power generation.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

How much KE can we get from a 200 foot tall wall of water 40 miles wide traveling at 6mph?

Edited September 16, 2009 by Cyclonebuster
Consecutive posts merged.

[insane_alien]

yes, but the gulf stream is a flow of warm water, below that where the water is cold ther isn't much of a current.

 

and you still have massive amounts of infrastructure and only about 5% of what would be required for a midget hurricane (as per my calculations above.)

 

edit just checked a number there, what you were proposing (cooling an area of ocean a week before hand) and using the area of a midget hurricane, you need a flowrate that is 1.34 times that of the gulf stream itself.

 

we do not have the technology to shift this amount of water. at least not at tremendous cost(far more than the damage that is likely to be caused by a hurricane)

 

EDIT2: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28%28pi*222km%29^2+*50m%2Fweek%29+%2F+30000000m^3%2Fs calculation

Edited September 16, 2009 by insane_alien

[Cyclonebuster]

yes, but the gulf stream is a flow of warm water, below that where the water is cold ther isn't much of a current.

 

and you still have massive amounts of infrastructure and only about 5% of what would be required for a midget hurricane (as per my calculations above.)

 

The gulfstream flows to the North thoughout its entire depth at 6 mph I have already verified this with the Hurricane center.The water cools off the deeper you go. Near the bottom it is very cold near 32 degrees. The sun doesn't penetrate the surface adding warmth past the 500 foot mark very much.

[insane_alien]

yes but you can't get it up there faster than the flow of water.

 

what you are proposing is we turn the flow of the gulf stream and increase it by ~35% then deliver it all to the one place for seven days.

 

also, have you ever though that this might(just might) have sever global reprocussions as the gulf stream is a pretty big player in the global redistribution of heat.

[Cyclonebuster]

yes but you can't get it up there faster than the flow of water.

 

what you are proposing is we turn the flow of the gulf stream and increase it by ~35% then deliver it all to the one place for seven days.

 

also, have you ever though that this might(just might) have sever global reprocussions as the gulf stream is a pretty big player in the global redistribution of heat.

Well we are already warming it so what harm will it do by cooling it? It would Actually be cooler than this in the winter time anyways.

[insane_alien]

your not doing any cooling though, your just spreading the heat around a bit more(and disrupting one of the currents that COOLS DOWN the equatorial regions).

 

removing the gulf stream would cause colder winters in the UK and scandinavian countries, the north eastern passage would close up locking many russian ports in ice all year round and disrupting trade routes. eco systems local to where the system is would be disrupted as well.

 

the flow of nutrients to most of the world oceans would also be disrupted causing some areas of the oceans to eutrophy and others to starve.

 

not to mention that it would cost trillions of dollars to build(and last time i checked the US has the largest debt in the world by an order of magnitude, not to mention the current economic crisis).

 

you'd be FAR better spending the money on upgrading buildings to survive hurricanes than this.

[A Tripolation]

Yeah, upgrading houses would be money MUCH MORE well spent.

And plus, you dont want to go around fooling with the weather. It could have unintended consequences.

 

The hurricanes that hit near the Atlantic Coast often bring a lot of water to states that are caught in a drought. Hurricane rain has saved a lot of crops where I live.

[Cyclonebuster]

your not doing any cooling though, your just spreading the heat around a bit more(and disrupting one of the currents that COOLS DOWN the equatorial regions).

 

removing the gulf stream would cause colder winters in the UK and scandinavian countries, the north eastern passage would close up locking many russian ports in ice all year round and disrupting trade routes. eco systems local to where the system is would be disrupted as well.

 

the flow of nutrients to most of the world oceans would also be disrupted causing some areas of the oceans to eutrophy and others to starve.

 

not to mention that it would cost trillions of dollars to build(and last time i checked the US has the largest debt in the world by an order of magnitude, not to mention the current economic crisis).

 

you'd be FAR better spending the money on upgrading buildings to survive hurricanes than this.

 

That all depends on how long they are kept in cooling phase or how much we want to regulate the SSTs. The temperature cooling they provide is variable anywhere between 70 to 90 degrees F and for any time duration. Computer modeling will help us out on this as to how how long and at what temp. we cool to. They can also restore the arctic ice that has been lost.

[insane_alien]

computer model says its a crap idea. and even a day would reuslt in severe disruption. how do they know this? because they've simulated a similar scenario based on a natural way the thermo-halinecycle that drives the gulf streame stopping due to dilution of the northern atlantic with fresh water.

 

basically, north america would be the least affected only experiencing severe droughts through summer, other places will be hit by frezzing temperatures, flooding, excessively hot temperatures, more droughts, larger hurricanes(holy crap isn't that what you're trying to stop.)

 

basically, what you are proposing is that we bugger up the rest of the worlds climate for the sake of florida.(which would still get massive hurricanes as the gulfstream is no longer cooling the atlantic).

 

yeah, not only technologically infeasible but also ecologically disasterous.

 

there are other methods more likely to work (as in the experiments, while small in scale had a measurable effect on the hurricanes). better to look into less disruptive methods.

[Cyclonebuster]

computer model says its a crap idea. and even a day would reuslt in severe disruption. how do they know this? because they've simulated a similar scenario based on a natural way the thermo-halinecycle that drives the gulf streame stopping due to dilution of the northern atlantic with fresh water.

 

basically, north america would be the least affected only experiencing severe droughts through summer, other places will be hit by frezzing temperatures, flooding, excessively hot temperatures, more droughts, larger hurricanes(holy crap isn't that what you're trying to stop.)

 

basically, what you are proposing is that we bugger up the rest of the worlds climate for the sake of florida.(which would still get massive hurricanes as the gulfstream is no longer cooling the atlantic).

 

yeah, not only technologically infeasible but also ecologically disasterous.

 

there are other methods more likely to work (as in the experiments, while small in scale had a measurable effect on the hurricanes). better to look into less disruptive methods.

 

NAH! They can be used to restore the climate to that prior to the industrial revolution. Computers can verify this!

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

The fresh water caused it to stop because the ice melted. The Tunnels restore the ice the exact opposite of what you are saying.

[insane_alien]

can you post the links to where computers have said the breakdown of the gulf stream doesn't cause major ecological disruption?

[Cyclonebuster]

can you post the links to where computers have said the breakdown of the gulf stream doesn't cause major ecological disruption?

There are articles that tell of the gulfstream slowing down due to the polar ice melting due to global warming. This idea with the tunnels reverse that trend by restoring the polar ice and reversing global warming.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Melting glaciers shut down Gulf Stream in past

 

At the end of the last Ice Age —11.5 to 13 thousand years ago — the north Atlantic deep water circulation system that drives the Gulf Stream may have shut down because of melting glaciers that added freshwater into the north Atlantic Ocean over several hundred years, researchers say.

 

"For the first time, we have shown that realistic additions of glacial meltwater into the north Atlantic would have shut down north Atlantic deep water production over a period of a few hundred years, if the initial ocean circulation was somewhat weaker than that of today," said David Rind, lead author of the study and a senior climate researcher at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The study appears in the current issue of Journal of Geophysical Research — Atmospheres.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/climate/2001-11-25-atlantic-circulation.htm

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Shutdown Of Circulation Pattern Could Be Disastrous, Researchers Say

ScienceDaily (Dec. 20, 2004) — CHAMPAIGN, Ill. — If global warming shuts down the thermohaline circulation in the North Atlantic Ocean, the result could be catastrophic climate change. The environmental effects, models indicate, depend upon whether the shutdown is reversible or irreversible.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/12/041219153611.htm

[insane_alien]

notice how those articles say 'catastrophic climate change?' ie. the agree with me rather than you.

[Cyclonebuster]

notice how those articles say 'catastrophic climate change?' ie. the agree with me rather than you.

 

Notice in those articles the catastrophic climate change is due to a warming planet not a cooling planet.

[insane_alien]

yes, but the cause of the catastrophic climate change is due to the disruption of thermohaline circulation. which is exacly what you would do in this scenario. not only that but you would also have to disrupt other currents in order to get the quantity of water necessary.

 

not tomention that your plan wouldn't fix global warming at all.

 

do you really think you can disrupt the largest oceanic current in the world and have no effect on the climates of other parts of the world?

[Cyclonebuster]

yes, but the cause of the catastrophic climate change is due to the disruption of thermohaline circulation. which is exacly what you would do in this scenario. not only that but you would also have to disrupt other currents in order to get the quantity of water necessary.

 

not tomention that your plan wouldn't fix global warming at all.

 

do you really think you can disrupt the largest oceanic current in the world and have no effect on the climates of other parts of the world?

 

Sure we would just be restoring the gulfstream flow to pre-industrial revolution conditions as it is already slowing due to the warming we are creating with fossil fuels. The warming direction we are headed now is insane.We need to cool things off a bit to prevent such things as the gulfstream stoppping due to the warming.Computer medeling of the tunnels can prove the tunnels will speed the gulfstream current back up again. They are just what the doctor ordered for our planets fever. You can say they are Earths aspirin.

[insane_alien]

1/ stopping the gulf stream will not cause global cooling, it will cause global heating.

 

the gulf stream does this by carry heat from the equatorial regions to the north pole. where it cools, this cool water goes back south and cools the equatorial regions.

 

2/ the earths weather system is a very complex system. small changes can cause major distruction. disrupting the gulf stream is a MAJOR disruption. global weather patterns would become erratic until the currents settled into a new stable pattern which would take decades.

 

3/ it isn't okay to cause the mass migration of millions of people just to stop a few states from encountering some bad weather.