panama canal

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > panama canal > Page 3

Page 3 of 5

19-02-2024 13:15
Swan★★★★★ (5725)	IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:So you never ran a boat through the turbulent water where the river and oceans meet. So, you never got as far as leaving the mouth of the river to where the sea was at sea level? Why did you even bother getting in a boat? You missed all the best fishing, by the way. Actually stripers migrate as do the flounder and sea bass so the best fishing is dependent on the time of the year IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD. According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND. ULTRA MAGA "Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic? It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck. Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
22-02-2024 19:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Swan wrote: Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: One of the cases of uneven sea levels is at the mouth of he amazon. At this point there is at times faster rate of inflow into the atlantic ocean than the rate of leveling. This is another case of differing rates of inflow vs outflow causing a build up of water, thermal energy or what ever River discharge does not change sea level. Then why is the sea level at the Amazon mouth 3.3 cm higher than the surrounding ocean? A river is not an ocean. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2024 19:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	keepit wrote: The amazon measurers say so. It only stands to reason that the sea level would be higher where there is a large and rapid outflow of river water. What 'Amazon measurers'?? A river is not an ocean. Redefinition fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2024 19:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote:Then why is the sea level at the Amazon mouth 3.3 cm higher than the surrounding ocean? Who, besides you, says it is? Contribution of the Amazon River Discharge to Regional Sea Level in the Tropical Atlantic Ocean...... A river is not an ocean. Redefinition fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2024 19:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: Recent studies suggested that its impact on sea level is potentially important at global and regional scales. The first question is whether you called booooolsch't or not. The river gets its water from rain which comes from evaporation of sea water into the atmosphere. The river's discharge returns water, that came from the ocean, back to the ocean. It has no effect on sea level. But wait! You posted this article instead of calling booooolsch't. You fell for it. You actually fell for it. Now you're in competition with keepit in a race for the bottom. The fact is that the Amazon's outflow raises the ocean level near the mouth of the river before it has time to disperse and level out. A river is not an ocean. Redefinition fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2024 19:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Im a BM wrote: Swan wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Swan wrote: Recent studies suggested that its impact on sea level is potentially important at global and regional scales. The first question is whether you called booooolsch't or not. The river gets its water from rain which comes from evaporation of sea water into the atmosphere. The river's discharge returns water, that came from the ocean, back to the ocean. It has no effect on sea level. But wait! You posted this article instead of calling booooolsch't. You fell for it. You actually fell for it. Now you're in competition with keepit in a race for the bottom. The fact is that the Amazon's outflow raises the ocean level near the mouth of the river before it has time to disperse and level out. However you just think that the 83 Olympic size swimming pools that the Amazon drains into the Atlantic every second automatically level out in the ocean. Well the outflow is just too fast for that. Your lack of IQ is still on track at 85 however ------------------------------------------------------------ Once again, IBdaMann's lack of intellectual honesty is exposed. You are describing yourself again, Sock. Im a BM wrote: River water flows DOWNHILL from an above sea level position. No one ever said otherwise. Im a BM wrote: It is not physically possible for it to INSTANTANEOUSLY drop to sea level just because the river water has reached the sea. A river is not the sea. Redefinition fallacy. Im a BM wrote: OF COURSE there is some area of water in the ocean that remains higher than sea level at the point of river water entry. Especially when such a huge volume of water is involved. If IBdaMann were intellectually honest, he would admit the error. Perhaps even apologize for hurling insults when, in fact, it is HE who has been legitimately called out for "booolscht" or whatever. A river is not the sea or the ocean. Redefinition fallacy. Im a BM wrote: He is basically a disgusting person whose weak grasp of science is self evident. You are describing yourself again, Sock. Im a BM wrote: More than any other troll posting at this site, he is responsible for driving away the 1690 plus members who gave up on the website. There were not 1690 active posters at any time on this site, Sock. You are lying again. Im a BM wrote: I certainly saw this occur over the last nearly two years as more than a hundred new members came and went. You never saw any such thing. Stop making shit up, Sock. Im a BM wrote: Talk about "gullible"... IBdaMann actually believes his own lies. You are describing yourself again, Sock. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2024 19:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Swan wrote: Yes the Pacific is higher than the Atlantic, and yes the massive outflow of the Amazon raises the local height if the Atlantic. Now finish your mushrooms The Pacific ocean is not higher than the Atlantic ocean. You are ignoring hydrodynamics again. A river is not an ocean. Redefinition fallacy (again). What have you got against mushrooms? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2024 19:33
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	James_ wrote: Swan wrote: Yes the Pacific is higher than the Atlantic, and yes the massive outflow of the Amazon raises the local height if the Atlantic. Now finish your mushrooms And yet the Atlantic Ocean has the Mid-Atlantic Ridge while the Pacific Ocean sits on its very own tectonic plate. Significance Sawd? The ocean floor does not change the ocean level. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2024 19:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	James_ wrote: Swan wrote: James_ wrote: The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is obvious. To the right of where it says North Atlantic Ocean is the African tectonic plate. Where the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is most noticeable is where the North American, Eurasian and African tectonic plates meet. A coincidence? We can ask Saw'd it. And the Mid-Atlantic Ridge being most noticeable at the junction of 3 tectonic plates says it's the weakest joint or it's a collision. And if you go east of the Ural Mountains in Russia and before you get to Yekaterinburg you'll be in Asia. Just an FYI (For Your Information). So Saw'd it why is the Pacific Ocean above a single tectonic plate at a higher elevation than water over 3 different tectonic plates? How would both the North American and the Eurasian tectonic plates subducting under the Pacific plate (pushing the pacific plate down?) influence how gravity interacts with sea level? Does this change the Earth's CoG? Or like the Moon, does it distort the Earth's gravitational filed? So you can't find a link that says what you claim Silly I'm asking you what you think. I am here to learn from you. So teach. He can't teach, for he doesn't know the material. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2024 19:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	Swan wrote: James_ wrote: Swan wrote: James_ wrote: The Mid-Atlantic Ridge is obvious. To the right of where it says North Atlantic Ocean is the African tectonic plate. Where the Mid-Atlantic Ridge is most noticeable is where the North American, Eurasian and African tectonic plates meet. A coincidence? We can ask Saw'd it. And the Mid-Atlantic Ridge being most noticeable at the junction of 3 tectonic plates says it's the weakest joint or it's a collision. And if you go east of the Ural Mountains in Russia and before you get to Yekaterinburg you'll be in Asia. Just an FYI (For Your Information). So Saw'd it why is the Pacific Ocean above a single tectonic plate at a higher elevation than water over 3 different tectonic plates? How would both the North American and the Eurasian tectonic plates subducting under the Pacific plate (pushing the pacific plate down?) influence how gravity interacts with sea level? Does this change the Earth's CoG? Or like the Moon, does it distort the Earth's gravitational filed? So you can't find a link that says what you claim Silly I'm asking you what you think. I am here to learn from you. So teach. I think that Alan destroyed your brain. The good news is that Abilify can help. My fee for teaching is steep, I seriously doubt that you could afford the tuition Free is 'expensive'?? You can't teach what you do not know. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2024 20:41
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Swan wrote: Yes the Pacific is higher than the Atlantic, and yes the massive outflow of the Amazon raises the local height if the Atlantic. Now finish your mushrooms And yet the Atlantic Ocean has the Mid-Atlantic Ridge while the Pacific Ocean sits on its very own tectonic plate. Significance Sawd? The ocean floor does not change the ocean level. Feedback loop inversion fallacy, Newton's 1st law of motion and g = Gm/r^2....
22-02-2024 22:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	James_ wrote: g = Gm/r^2 You got this mixed-up. It's G=gm/[d^2] ... or ... GRAVITY_BETWEEN = gravity_constant mass1 * mass2 / [distance squared] Otherwise you have Swan up against the ropes. Don't let him squirm his way out of your stranglehold.
22-02-2024 23:21
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: James_ wrote: g = Gm/r^2 You got this mixed-up. It's G=gm/[d^2] ... or ... GRAVITY_BETWEEN = gravity_constant mass1 * mass2 / [distance squared] Otherwise you have Swan up against the ropes. Don't let him squirm his way out of your stranglehold. The divisor represents an idea but in the context used is wrong. Both science and math should describe a functions. Did you mean to say G=(m/([d^2]/2))/g? m/r^2/g = G
23-02-2024 10:29
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	One issue scientists might have is when someone mentions that water is over 800 times denser than air. How much high and low tide does the Moon's gravity create? Then if the atmosphere is lifted or lowered over 800 times as much, would all of that work create any heat? And this is basically twice a day. Have scientists tried determining how much the height of the tropopause changes because of the Moon's gravity? No? And this would show how gravity and atmospheric gasses can generate heat. This would help to illustrate that atmospheric gasses can warm as a result of conserving energy from another source. This then gets into the composition of atmospheric gasses and KE = 3/2kT (velocity of a molecule because KE also is 1/2mv^2). Then can someone define what "trapping heat" is if it's based on conserving energy? Is conserving energy "trapping" it? p.s., If the Moon's gravity helps to heat the Earth, if you missed this it's because scientists missed it as well. With the Earth's energy budget, does it include work done by gravity? It does not. This is why perpetual motion is impossible. Gravity simply does not have energy that can be conserved. And if perpetual motion is possible then it's possible that atmospheric gasses are conserving energy from the Moon's gravitational field. If the Moon is causing the Earth's environment to expand and contract (high and low tide), is that meaningful work being performed? If so then is that an example of conservation of energy and heat is a flow of energy? p.s.s., Atmospheric gasses have an average velocity of about 1,000 mph/1,600km/h. The Earth spins on its axis as well, right? That's more energy. The orbital velocity of the Earth's gravitational field is about 17,000 mph or 27,200 km/h. Think gravity that holds us down is 9.81 m/s and increases by 9.81 every second only orbiting the Earth like a satellite. Attached image: Edited on 23-02-2024 11:23
23-02-2024 17:04
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	And when you consider the Earth's energy budget, notice the 23% of incoming solar radiation is blocked by other things ozone (O3). When the ozone layer is depleted does that allow for more incoming solar radiation to enter the Earth's atmosphere? The temperature variation for last night and today where I live. A difference of less than 7º C. What I propose is that when the height of the troposphere lowers that compression of the atmosphere increases the number of collisions between molecules in the atmosphere as the amount of energy from the Van Allen radiation belts and solar radiation decreases. And we all know that when gasses are compressed that most gasses will give off heat. Gasses with a negative Joule - Thomson coefficient will become more excited in a Joule - Thomson throttling process (when gasses are cooled by expanding volume while restricting the inflow of more gasses. Why it's called a "throttling process". Spawn'd aka Swan, is there anything you'd care to add? There's more which observation and temperature alone (you need a thermometer to observe, right?) will show that conservation of energy can be a flow of heat through the Earth's atmosphere. At the same time, weather fronts are obvious flows of energy although not always associated with heat. p.s., the Earth's temperature (average as measured by 2 Billion thermometers verified by Spawn'd, is that enough because enquiring minds want to know, pick up a copy of The Enquirer at your supermarket checkout today) is; The mean temperatures of 59°F (15°C) or 288 Kelvins. 1° kelvin = 1°C. Is the Earth really warmed by 340 w/m^2? They used to say 1,360 w/m^2. When going from absolute 0°K (I'll say 0°C) and 0°F. up to 15°C or 59°F. is actually because of 340 w/m^2 of solar radiation? Could your microwave heat anything let alone warm it if that's all the power it had? p.s.s, The Earth is heated 288°C or 518°F above ABSOLUTE ZERO by a continuous flow of ~340 w/m^2. (~ means about). Attached image: Edited on 23-02-2024 17:14
23-02-2024 19:08
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	And because we're discussing climate change and Panama, did the composition of the atmosphere in that region change? When solar radiation moves east to west, how is this flow of energy influenced by atmospheric gasses? With the rainforest, it seems that an imbalance in kinetic energy in the atmosphere has been created (fire, CO2). And thermodynamics requires an equilibrium to be sought just as with Bessler's Wheel unless an outside force changes things. Fire is heat, obvious. CO2 likes to evenly disperse in the atmosphere, not so obvious. And this might also account for more storms and more intense storms in Harvey55's part of the world. What burning the Amazon doesn't push south will go north along the Gulf Stream. p.s., I am staying on topic for keepit. I watch a lot of documentaries and have known for years that the Panamanian Golden Frog was a barometer for that part of the Amazon Rainforest. They're sensitive to the destruction of their wetlands (drying up). And from those not so wet wetlands comes the water for the locks. With the locks, they might have to create new reservoirs to recycle what water they can when they lower the level of a lock. Something tells me they've been letting the water drain because of the water supply they had. p.s.s., This is funny like ROFL funny. More hurricanes and tropical storms in Alabama and Georgia are caused by rising CO2 levels......in the Amazon Rainforest. Edited on 23-02-2024 19:19
23-02-2024 20:38
keepit ★★★★★ (3070)	James, Please don't stay on topic on my account. That would be too much pressure on me.
23-02-2024 20:51
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	James_ wrote: ... how is this flow of energy influenced by atmospheric gasses? Who, or what, is the atmosphere gassing? James_ wrote: With the rainforest, it seems that an imbalance in kinetic energy in the atmosphere has been created (fire, CO2). Kinetic energy does not have an isBalanced() method. [quote]James_ wrote: And thermodynamics requires an equilibrium to be sought just as with Bessler's Wheel unless an outside force changes things. Thermodynamics does not require an equilibrium. Black body science assumes an equilibrium unless otherwise specified. James_ wrote: Fire is heat, obvious. Nope. Fire is light, produced by combustion. That same combustion also produces heat (by converting chemical energy into thermal energy which then flows from the source of combustion to some other body of matter). James_ wrote: CO2 likes to evenly disperse in the atmosphere, not so obvious. CO2 has no preferences; it isn't alive. CO2 is relegated to dispersing as air currents dictate. James_ wrote: And this might also account for more storms and more intense storms in Harvey55's part of the world. I don't see how. Would you care to explain? I realize that this gets into Fischer-Tropsch and how the Van Allen belt further depletes the ozone, allowing for longer FIFA seasons in the northern hemisphere, but feel free to lay it on me. James_ wrote: What burning the Amazon doesn't push south will go north along the Gulf Stream. Only north and south? Whatever happened to dispersing evenly in all directions? James_ wrote: p.s., I am staying on topic for keepit. keepit is full of baloney. Too many false statements. He has no credibility. James_ wrote: I watch a lot of documentaries and have known for years that the Panamanian Golden Frog was a barometer for that part of the Amazon Rainforest. They all took barometer jobs in Costa Rica where they have better pay and better ziplining.
23-02-2024 21:19
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	keepit wrote: James, Please don't stay on topic on my account. That would be too much pressure on me. This would actually put pressure on who's responsible for the canal. When ships are being elevated, water from Lake Gatun can be allowed to flow as the gates permit. When a ship is being elevated, the locks will need to be flushed of sea water to prevent contaminating Lake Gatun. Could you imagine if they had to either install an elevator on each side lifting or lowering a ship the height of 1 lock? The alternative would be recycling/purifying water from 2 gates. This is going up or down. Then the water in those 2 locks can be matched to the direction things are going in. This means the water would be processed while a ship is transiting from its current lock to the next one in line. The cost of this when compared to changing policy in Brazil, changing the policy in Brazil would be a win for everyone. I think this shows that you actually brought up a good point keepit. I think there is an economical solution and if there is you'll probably hear about it. Edited on 23-02-2024 21:40
24-02-2024 07:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	James_ wrote: One issue scientists might have is when someone mentions that water is over 800 times denser than air. How much high and low tide does the Moon's gravity create? Then if the atmosphere is lifted or lowered over 800 times as much, would all of that work create any heat? And this is basically twice a day. Have scientists tried determining how much the height of the tropopause changes because of the Moon's gravity? No? And this would show how gravity and atmospheric gasses can generate heat. This would help to illustrate that atmospheric gasses can warm as a result of conserving energy from another source. This then gets into the composition of atmospheric gasses and KE = 3/2kT (velocity of a molecule because KE also is 1/2mv^2). Then can someone define what "trapping heat" is if it's based on conserving energy? Is conserving energy "trapping" it? p.s., If the Moon's gravity helps to heat the Earth, if you missed this it's because scientists missed it as well. With the Earth's energy budget, does it include work done by gravity? It does not. This is why perpetual motion is impossible. Gravity simply does not have energy that can be conserved. And if perpetual motion is possible then it's possible that atmospheric gasses are conserving energy from the Moon's gravitational field. If the Moon is causing the Earth's environment to expand and contract (high and low tide), is that meaningful work being performed? If so then is that an example of conservation of energy and heat is a flow of energy? p.s.s., Atmospheric gasses have an average velocity of about 1,000 mph/1,600km/h. The Earth spins on its axis as well, right? That's more energy. The orbital velocity of the Earth's gravitational field is about 17,000 mph or 27,200 km/h. Think gravity that holds us down is 9.81 m/s and increases by 9.81 every second only orbiting the Earth like a satellite. Heat is not energy. Gravity is not heat. Gravity is not energy. Atmospheric gasses are not heat. Atmospheric gasses are not energy. There is no conservation of heat. Speed is not heat. Gravity is not a mass. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-02-2024 08:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	James_ wrote: keepit wrote: James, Please don't stay on topic on my account. That would be too much pressure on me. This would actually put pressure on who's responsible for the canal. The Panama Canal Authority operates the Panama canal. James_ wrote: When ships are being elevated, water from Lake Gatun can be allowed to flow as the gates permit. When a ship is being elevated, the locks will need to be flushed of sea water to prevent contaminating Lake Gatun. Water does not flow through closed gates. It flows through separate plumbing to fill the lock and again to empty it. The lock does not need to be flushed at all. All flow is toward the sea. James_ wrote: Could you imagine if they had to either install an elevator on each side lifting or lowering a ship the height of 1 lock? The alternative would be recycling/purifying water from 2 gates. This is going up or down. Then the water in those 2 locks can be matched to the direction things are going in. This means the water would be processed while a ship is transiting from its current lock to the next one in line. A lock IS an elevator. James_ wrote: The cost of this when compared to changing policy in Brazil, changing the policy in Brazil would be a win for everyone. Brazil does not operate the locks. The Panama Canal Authority does. James_ wrote: I think this shows that you actually brought up a good point keepit. I think there is an economical solution and if there is you'll probably hear about it. Keepit didn't bring up a point. What 'economic solution' are you talking about? What is the so-called 'problem'? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-02-2024 13:13
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Into the Night wrote:The Panama Canal Authority operates the Panama canal. Employees operate the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal has no Authority because it's not an employee. Into the Night wrote:A lock IS an elevator. They're escalators. As ITN mentioned, the locks are always flushing themselves. That's wasteful.
24-02-2024 20:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21628)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote:The Panama Canal Authority operates the Panama canal. Employees operate the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal has no Authority because it's not an employee. The Panama Canal Authority is the employer, dummy. They operate all the locks along the canal and provide harbor pilot services as well for it. James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote:A lock IS an elevator. They're escalators. Nope. They are literally a hydraulic elevator. Instead of a floor on a column, it's just the hydraulic fluid itself, allowing the whole ship to be elevated as the 'floor'. James_ wrote: As ITN mentioned, the locks are always flushing themselves. That's wasteful. It is not wasteful. It is normal river flow. The locks use no pumps. None are needed. Normal river flow is use to fill the locks. As the locks are emptied, the river just continues to flow down to the sea. It is using the river itself to fill the locks. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 24-02-2024 20:35
25-02-2024 15:59
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote:The Panama Canal Authority operates the Panama canal. Employees operate the Panama Canal. The Panama Canal has no Authority because it's not an employee. The Panama Canal Authority is the employer, dummy. They operate all the locks along the canal and provide harbor pilot services as well for it. You mean they use prostitutes to walk the canal for them? James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote:A lock IS an elevator. They're escalators. Into the Night wrote: Nope. They are literally a hydraulic elevator. Instead of a floor on a column, it's just the hydraulic fluid itself, allowing the whole ship to be elevated as the 'floor'. Into the Night wrote: The locks use no pumps. None are needed. Normal river flow is use to fill the locks. As the locks are emptied, the river just continues to flow down to the sea. It is using the river itself to fill the locks. Ya wanna stay in business, right? Isn't that the goal here but you keep moving the goal posts? https://youtu.be/ak0Bai-ikz0 James_ wrote: As ITN mentioned, the locks are always flushing themselves. That's wasteful. Into the Night wrote: It is not wasteful. It is normal river flow. It's wasteful. p.s., I posted an update in the Off Topic - Perpetual Motion thread. See? I am staying on topic and ; Officials say those water-saving basins are the largest in the world and facilitate a 60 percent reuse of water. Whereas the existing locks use 52 million gallons (197 million litres) with each use, the new locks use 48 million gallons (182 million litres). This video suggests more water savings; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aarjrOeD6Aw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aarjrOeD6Aw p.s.s., This means we can discuss why the wetlands that feed Lake Gatun is decreasing in size because of decreased rainfall in the Amazon rainforest. Edited on 25-02-2024 16:45
25-02-2024 21:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	James_ wrote: It's wasteful. Explain. The water running out to the ocean will evaporate just the same as if it were remaining in Lake Gatún. Eventually, the same amount of water will fall, as rain, back into Lake Gatún. What does it matter if it evaporates in the lake vs out at sea?
27-02-2024 18:36
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: James_ wrote: It's wasteful. Explain. The water running out to the ocean will evaporate just the same as if it were remaining in Lake Gatún. Eventually, the same amount of water will fall, as rain, back into Lake Gatún. What does it matter if it evaporates in the lake vs out at sea? If they slow the flow rate out into the ocean then that would help to restore the wetlands where the Panamanian Golden Frog lives that all of us loves so much. And with the locks, it might be possible to reduce the flow by so much that they'd need gateways which would act as the original rivers. What does it matter if it evaporates in the lake vs out at sea? Which ever updraft (flow of water vapor) is warmer should determine wind direction from that vertex. This would be adding or water to or removing water from Lake Gatun. Edited on 27-02-2024 18:38
27-02-2024 20:04
keepit ★★★★★ (3070)	The problem is the timing of the out flow and the timing of the evaporation and the eventual rainfall. If the outflow happens before the rainfall, then there isn't enough water to refill the locks. It's elementary. Edited on 27-02-2024 20:05
27-02-2024 23:08
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	keepit wrote: The problem is the timing of the out flow and the timing of the evaporation and the eventual rainfall. If the outflow happens before the rainfall, then there isn't enough water to refill the locks. It's elementary. It surprised me to find out that Hua Hin (it's in Thailand) has cool winter temperatures, about 15º C./58º F. . Checked Panama and it's rainy season is between May and November with December 1/2 and 1/2. https://climateknowledgeportal.worldbank.org/country/panama/climate-data-historical After December 21st (winter solstice, longest night), the northern hemisphere starts leaning towards the Sun again until the summer solstice on June 21st (usually). And this is when the rains decreases until May. Edited on 27-02-2024 23:51
28-02-2024 01:25
keepit ★★★★★ (3070)	James, It takes time for the lake to fill up. It can't filol up just at the start of the rainy season, rather it fills up gradually. Then, while it's filling up the canal is draining it. The whole process makes it difficult to become fully operational in a drier than normal season.
28-02-2024 06:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	keepit wrote:The problem is the timing of the out flow and the timing of the evaporation and the eventual rainfall. If the outflow happens before the rainfall, then there isn't enough water to refill the locks. It's elementary. This has never been a problem in history of the canal, i.e. Panama has never had to cease operations of the canal due to insufficient water in Lake Gatún. There have been years that the lake level got low, but it always rains a lot in Panamá.
28-02-2024 06:43
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	keepit wrote: James, It takes time for the lake to fill up. It can't filol up just at the start of the rainy season, Lake Gatún often fills at the beginning of the rain season. It rains a lot in Panamá. keepit wrote: rather it fills up gradually. After the initial quick fill at beginning of the rain season, the lake reaches a point whereby it takes a lot more water just to raise the lake level one inch, and the lake sort of reaches an equilibrium with canal operations. At that point, increases and decreases are more gradual. keepit wrote: Then, while it's filling up the canal is draining it. ... and the evaporation acceleration is worse than previously feared! keepit wrote: The whole process makes it difficult to become fully operational in a drier than normal season. Roughly half of all years in Panamá are drier than normal, and there has never been a problem.
28-02-2024 07:48
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	keepit wrote: James, It takes time for the lake to fill up. It can't filol up just at the start of the rainy season, rather it fills up gradually. Then, while it's filling up the canal is draining it. The whole process makes it difficult to become fully operational in a drier than normal season. When I looked at the monthly temperature and rainfall for Panama City, I found it interesting. When the tornado season ends in the Atlantic in the northern hemisphere, Panama seems to have its 2 rainiest months and then has its "dry season". Does this mean as more tropical storms head for Florida the less rain the rainforest where the isthmus and South America meet will have. Basically less rain in Columbia/Panama/Venezuela region. I'm looking at GooglEarth and on another tab where the equator is (Coriolis effect?). It goes for the most part between Colombia/Venezuela and Brazil. The winds along the equator usually don't cross the equator. That tends to support the Coriolis effect. Also the Sahara Desert might help to supply the warm air. This would be why the wetlands had enough water for the locks. And to quote ITN so we won't have to hear from him ( ) heat is a flow of energy. And that flow starts across the Sahara Desert. Thank you for that little tidbit of information there ITN, sure enough do appreciate it. Now we can wonder what changes the winds created by the Coriolis effect when moving east to west (following the Sun).
28-02-2024 07:55
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: keepit wrote:The problem is the timing of the out flow and the timing of the evaporation and the eventual rainfall. If the outflow happens before the rainfall, then there isn't enough water to refill the locks. It's elementary. This has never been a problem in history of the canal, i.e. Panama has never had to cease operations of the canal due to insufficient water in Lake Gatún. There have been years that the lake level got low, but it always rains a lot in Panamá. The canal has had to cease function because of malaria. The French started the canal and then when too many people died they abandoned the project. The same guy also designed/built the Suez Canal. Why are you such a meany and don't like the Panamanian Golden Frog for? What's he ever done to you you big bully you. In fact because I like you, I want you to kiss and make up with a Panamanian Golden Frog. p.s., it's only rumored that they're poisonous (They're not, you can trust me ). Maybe your friend swanned will join you for a tea party? Edited on 28-02-2024 07:56
28-02-2024 13:10
keepit ★★★★★ (3070)	ibd, I guess the semantics has you confused. The thing is that the problem was or is that there wasn't enough water to keep the frequency of ship passages as high as they wanted. It wasn't that they shut down, they just slowed down. I hope you don't get confused by semantics. When it gets too slow, some ships decide to just go around the cape. It's their decision. Edited on 28-02-2024 13:16
28-02-2024 20:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	James_ wrote: The canal has had to cease function because of malaria. Nope. Malaria caused delays in the construction of the canal, but there were no canal operations yet at that point. James_ wrote: Why are you such a meany and don't like the Panamanian Golden Frog for? He really pissed me off.
28-02-2024 20:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	keepit wrote: ibd, I guess the semantics has you confused. You're full of baloney, keepit. Your inability to communicate in English is not somehow my fault. You've made too many false statements. keepit wrote: The thing is that the problem was or is that there wasn't enough water to keep the frequency of ship passages as high as they wanted. You're full of baloney, keepit. No ships have been turned away in the history of the canal. Canal traffic has proceded normally at all times, 24/7, since the inception of the canal. You've made too many false statements, keepit. keepit wrote: It wasn't that they shut down, they just slowed down. Nope. Canal traffic has been running normally since inception. You're full of baloney. keepit wrote: I hope you don't get confused by semantics. I hope you one day learn what the word "semantics" means. You have no credibility, keepit. You've made too many false statements. keepit wrote: When it gets too slow, some ships decide to just go around the cape. It's their decision. That decision has nothing to do with rate of canal traffic, and everything to do with congestion. When many ships want to go through the canal at the same time, the line gets very long. Some ship captains do the calculus and find "going around" to be the better option. I hope you weren't confused by any of my "semantics."
28-02-2024 20:19
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	IBdaMann wrote: James_ wrote: The canal has had to cease function because of malaria. Nope. Malaria caused delays in the construction of the canal, but there were no canal operations yet at that point. James_ wrote: Construction is a function. James_ wrote: Why are you such a meany and don't like the Panamanian Golden Frog for? He really pissed me off. Il a entendu dire que tu aimais ses jambes. (He heard you liked his legs. Il est vrais? Je veux savoir c'il vous plait.) Edited on 28-02-2024 20:20
28-02-2024 20:53
keepit ★★★★★ (3070)	jbd, Clearly you don't think for yourself. Your posts are filled with concepts that i originated.
28-02-2024 21:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14450)	keepit wrote: jbd, Clearly you don't think for yourself. Your posts are filled with concepts that i originated. keepit, you are a brain-dead moron who has nothing intelligent to contribute to any topic. You don't originate any concepts. Your posts are the results of random neural synapses. You're an idiot ... and a liar.
28-02-2024 21:41
James_ ★★★★★ (2238)	keepit wrote: jbd, Clearly you don't think for yourself. Your posts are filled with concepts that i originated. there is no jbd. That's insulting. This is a forum. Everybody talks about what everybody says. You must like Spawn'd, Isn't and IBNotDaMann.

Page 3 of 5

Join the debate panama canal:

Threads	Replies	Last post
suez canal	4	05-04-2021 19:15