Reply With Quote
Pray tell, where else would you implement such an idea?
Northern Central Siberia?
I see a lot of you arguing about the specific geographical location, but not the idea.
Pray tell, where else would you implement such an idea?
Northern Central Siberia?
My God. Are you really that dense? Take to long with those small area screens to figure out where seal level is, and the total area.
Stop being so lame.
I already explained the purpose.
No Sherlock...
See post #67.
See post #67.
Why the stupid question? Are you purposely ignoring my intent of the OP? It doesn't matter that the lakes are probably the lowest points. That doesn't tell me with any accuracy the total area below sea level. They can be above or below sea level. in such a situation.
Tell me, WC: Where do you think the lowest points on this map would be?
Serious question.
Lake Mead (250 sq. mi.) didn't do to change the climate in NV/AZ. The idea sucks.
I'll leave this thread for you ankle biters. The idea is a bust.
Then get a ing shovel.
tbqh just look at the veritable oasis wonderland that the Salton Sea has created in the Colorado Desert.
What was your source?
It's quite a serious question.No, idiot. I was telling you where Lake Wild Cobra would be. Your stupid ass couldn't figure any of it out or use any of the clues I gave you to actually, you know, look up things like Lake Manly which would help you flesh out your idiotic theory.Are you purposely ignoring my intent of the OP?Why not? That's exactly where Lake Wild Cobra would be. You pump the water in, that's where it's going to go. It's the entire point of your stupid thread.It doesn't matter that the lakes are probably the lowest points.Why would they need to be above or below sea level? What the holy are you talking about?That doesn't tell me with any accuracy the total area below sea level. They can be above or below sea level. in such a situation.
Explain your hare-brained scheme for once so we can properly mock it.
Thanks in advance.
Last edited by ChumpDumper; 07-25-2011 at 04:28 AM.
Fair enough. I suspect that a lot of geoengineering ideas are bad ones. My personal favorite is wrapping Greenland in a giant Snuggie.
"Lake Mead (250 sq. mi.) didn't do to change the climate in NV/AZ."
excellent reference.
Its amazing that most of Baja California is a desert considering its on the Pacific. I mean all that determines a climate is how close it is to water, right?
"Baja California is a desert considering its on the Pacific"
yes, it is amazing, but not unique.
another one: the Namibian desert in s/w Africa, desert sand right to the water line.
There's a well understood reason for why these deserts occur and it happens at a scale much larger than a freaking man made reservoir will be able to solve. The only reason the SE US (and SE Asia - same principle - different body of water but also VERY large) isn't a desert is due to the Gulf of Mexico. So if you can make a reservoir of that size you might actually get somewhere with this idea.
When the air at the equator is heated up it rises in the atmosphere and then moves poleward. It cools as it does this and then sinks. Sinking air heats up and dries out immensely which is why you have such large swaths of low la ude deserts all over the world. Ever heard of a tiny sandy place on Earth called the Sahara?
Tell me again, WC, how well you understand the sciences around these situations better than anyone here. Please?
If I'm not mistaken both of those deserts are located on the leeward side of cold ocean currents that have less evaporative potential than what a warmer current would produce (deductively obvious).
Not that I condone the OP's geoengineering proposal (kind of left-field)... just figured I would point that out...
The water just gets colder as you move up into the Northern Pacific but there is plenty of precipitation through the coastal regions of that area.
Obviously there are more factors involved...
My point was more along the lines of suggesting that if the currents along North America's western coast were warmer that the areas not currently seeing much rainfall would probably see some....
By proxy those in the Pacific Northwest you pointed out would likely see much more...
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/circ.htm
Hadley cell - Low la ude air movement toward the equator that with heating, rises vertically, with poleward movement in the upper atmosphere. This forms a convection cell that dominates tropical and sub-tropical climates.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/global/climate.htm
B - Dry Climates
The most obvious climatic feature of this climate is that potential evaporation and transpiration exceed precipitation. These climates extend from 20°-35° North and South of the equator and in large continental regions of the mid-la udes often surrounded by mountains.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/gl...limate_max.htm
There are belts of deserts across the world at these la udes because of this.
More on the Hadley Cell:
Having lost most of its water vapor to condensation and rain in the upward branch of the circulation, the descending air is dry. Low relative humidities are produced as the air is adiabatically warmed due to compression as it descends into a region of higher pressure. The subtropics are relatively free of the convection, or thunderstorms, that are common in the equatorial belt of rising motion. Many of the world's deserts are located in these subtropical la udes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_Cell
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
