Slashdot Mirror


Controlling Hurricanes?

Phil Shapiro writes "With the cost of hurricane Katrina running as high as $100 billion, the thought of trying to control the severity of hurricanes should be mulled. Dissipating the energy of hurricanes as they're forming might be within the range of the feasible. Scientific American tackles this topic in an article last year, as does this crank. (I admit the crank is me.) Is this type of thing feasible, or is it best not even tried at all?"

29 of 795 comments (clear)

  1. Global Impact by nicc777 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What would the global impact be? Are we not trying to control something which is not ment to be controled? We don't even understand global warning 100% yet, now we want to do this?

    I would rather concentrate on building technology and common sense (don't build a city below water level - for example).

    My 2c

    PS: My prayers still go out to all victims of natural disasters - I can't imagine being in that situation. May God bless you all!

    --
    Need an ISP in South Africa?
    1. Re:Global Impact by gowen · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Are we not trying to control something which is not ment to be controled?
      Nothing is *meant* to be controlled [or at least "meant" by whom?]. The Creator? Hell, everytime we put up a brolly we are interrupting rain the Mother Nature "meant" to drop on our heads...
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:Global Impact by lthown · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Agreed. That's the first thing I thought when I read the headline. It's sort of like how we don't like the icky nasty river overflowing and messing up our farms that we decided to make right next to the river because the best soil is there due to the ovious fact that the river overflows and deposits nice rich silt there. So we build Dams (Aswan on the nile) or levees (lower Misissippi) and everything is hunky dory until the river delta starts to go away. In the case of New Orleans it caused the city ro sink, the delta to disappear and ultimately removed its only defense (I just read a interesting piece from 2002 about what's going to happen in a few years if it doesn't get fixed - surprise it happened just like they predicted). Anyway, rather than messing up the normal cycle why not get out of nature's way and let it do its thing. That means dealing with the normal flooding , fires, hurricanes, tornados and other disasters. This stuff isn't new folks! Hurricanes aren't a new development that suddenly appeared because of global warming or sunspots or migrating birds. It's a natural process and a way for the atmosphere to expend energy. Oddly enough it reminds me of parents who want their precious little darling to have everything they didn't have when growing up so the kid never learns anything. "do not deny your children the experiences that made you who you are" - spoken by a very wise person.

    3. Re:Global Impact by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We don't even understand global warning 100% yet, now we want to do this?

      Oh, I don't know. I think I understand it pretty well. The sun does it. To prevent hurricanes just put out the sun. This may raise some side issues, but I'm sure that sometime in the future technology will be able to deal with those.

      . . .don't build a city below water level. . .

      On the delta of one of the world's great flooding rivers in the hurricane belt. It's the confluence of the three factors that really causeses the trouble. We're not likely to see similar events in the Netherlands or Death Valley.

      I wrote a post about the similar problems faced by Bangledesh a few years ago. Since the problems faced by that country are largely geographical in origin the world can send them aid year after year for all eternity and nothing will ever change. Of course there the problem is also political. In the old days, when the country was simply a region of India, the peasanst would come down from the hills in the spring, plant their rice, go back up hill when flood season started, and come back to harvest the rice when the floods had receded. Now they've placed an international frontier right where the high ground starts.

      The Big Easy doesn't have that problem. It exists where it exists for perfectly legitimate reasons and will be rebuilt because it has to be, but most of the people in the area aren't there for that reason and the people who are should go uphill when the prevailing conditions make such a wise move.

      Doctor, it hurts my city when the volcano blows up. . .

      There is a simpler, easier, and more cost effective way of dealing with the above than putting out the volcano.

      KFG

    4. Re:Global Impact by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please. And when 1000+ Iraqis dies in a stampede, was God warning them? What about at Mecca when thousands used to die in the pilgrimage every year? Was he warning them too? Or when the monsoon is particularly bad and hits Indonesia, drowning 10s of thousands? Or when a tsunami kills hundreds of thousands in south asia?

      Natural disasters hit areas. Sometimes they hit without warning and everybody dies. Sometimes we have warning and the poorest and dumbest tend to die, like happened in New Orleans. Such is life, and the US isn't immune though it is generally more well-prepared and equipped to handle them than other nations.

    5. Re:Global Impact by jav1231 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Despite your depressing analysis, things are not getting worse. At least not in the sense you think they are. The only reason the damage is worse is because the population along the coast is getting larger. We're not seeing more storms and more powerful storms and they are not part of some "Earth is dying" or "Global Warming" scenerio. When Andrew hit, for instance, it was in a relatively low year of only about 7 storms. This is all normal and a normal part of nature. Whether we should "do" anything is a matter of ethics and science but not a matter of "things are getting worse."

    6. Re:Global Impact by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have to try something.

      It's called evacuation. It works well, for those people who comply.

      Weather control is a pipe dream for people who can't grasp the sheer scale of the atmosphere.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Global Impact by nwbvt · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Are you trying to imply Washington and New York are nowhere near the ocean? Because my map says differently.

      I remember back in 2003 when I believe it was Isabel hit, my family in the DC metro got hit harder than I did in North Carolina due to the flooding. And New York gets hit every once in a while as well. No, they are not hit as often as areas in the southeast, but they are vulnerable.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    8. Re:Global Impact by tjstork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why does God have to be nice?

      --
      This is my sig.
  2. Prediction by pubjames · · Score: 4, Insightful


    Perhaps we should just try to take predictions of hurricanes more seriously? Katrina was predicted, both as a long-range risk and some days before it hit. The damage would have been considerably reduced if the levees hadn't broke.

    1. Re:Prediction by Frans+Faase · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I understand that the risk that the levees could break was well-known, and that governments (at various levels) decided to do nothing about it. For that reason, the disaster that was caused when the levees broke, was partly a human engineerd disaster, not a natural disaster. Of course, many government officials talk about it as a "natural disaster" to avoid them being blamed for it. To a large extend it politics played a large role than technology. In that case politics needs fixing!

    2. Re:Prediction by BeanThere · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I understand that the risk that the levees could break was well-known, and that governments (at various levels) decided to do nothing about it.

      It's worse than that. The levees were specifically only designed to be able to withstand a category 3 hurricane. In other words, the science/math/engineering all basically says that the levees would break in a category 4 hurricane - they were breaking as designed, they didn't just "break by chance" ... in fact there was no way the levees could really have held up to a category 4 hurricane, by design they were too weak to do so. If you have a truck that is designed to carry a maximum of, say, 3 tonnes, and you load it with 4, then it's not "random chance" when it breaks - you expect that it will break. The limitations of the levees have been known since they were built decades ago, and the dangers that they were going to break known. The problem is that nobody in power (this adminstration or previous ones) has been willing to make the funds available to upgrade the levees, on a 'gamble' that a major hurricane would not hit during their terms. The Bush adminstration gambled again, and lost (even worse drastically cutting funding for the levees).

      The politicians have been playing Russian Roulette with New Orleans. In Russian Roulette, if you keep playing, you KNOW for a FACT you're going to get fscked, you just don't know when. This is 100% a human-engineered disaster. You can't tell me Taiwan can build the world's tallest building to hold up in an area that gets many earthquakes and typhoons, but the US doesn't know how to build a levee that can withstand a category 4 hurricane? It's not an "act of God" when the world's tallest building does or doesn't fall down in a 7.0 earthquake - it's an "act of Engineering" (and funding). Likewise for the levees.

  3. Uh, hurricanes have been around longer than SUVs by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    and Katrina happened to get so large so fast just because we hadn't had other hurricanes to bleed off the heat in the Gulf's water. What everyone seems to forget is that if Global Warming were causing more hurricanes, which it isn't as we are on or below average across the last 20 or so years, is that the number of cyclones and typhoons would have to increase as well, which they haven't.

    As for the hybrid versus SUV debate. Keep your damn hybrids, veritable ecological disasters on wheels. The current generation are nothing more than marketing gimmicks.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  4. No, i wouldn't do it. by Ckwop · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No, this should not be attempted. Not now, not ever. Weather has one of the key properties of a chaos: Sensative dependance on initial conditions. This property gives rise to the proveriable butterfly flapping it's wings in China could cause a hurricane in the US. People make the mistake of thinking that if we could just introduce a tiny change to counteract the butterflies wings we could easily avoid the hurricane. This is wrong headed. Sure, me breathing on my keyboard right now may well stop a hurricane occuring in the US but I have no way of knowing this. The same errors that make weather prediction so difficult also apply to weather prevention. You can't really predict how your changes will effect the weather any longer than a few days in to the future and this makes it essentially useless.

    That's not all. Think of the political implications. Say the US was unable to stop a hurricane but could divert it in to Mexico instead. This could be considered an act of war. A hurricane's energy is equal to detonating a low yield nuclear war head every second for hours on end. Diverting this incredible destructive energy to impact on another country would almost certainly lead to war.

    Finally, hurricanes occur naturally. Even the strong ones, like Katrina, are a neccessary saftey valve on global climate. If you could in principle dissipate the energy of a strong hurricane that energy has to go somewhere and I bet it stays in the Atmosphere. It's like the fire safety camapaigns in the states where they put out forest fires all through the 60-80s. Eventually, there was so much debris on the forest flaw that when it inevitably caught fire we got huge "superfires" that were very difficult to put out and damaged a lot of property. I would conjecture that if we did somehow manage to stop hurricanes, eventually, we'd get a super hurricane of incredible strength that releases all that unspent energy. Not a nice prospect..

    Simon

  5. Ocean plowing? by PorkNutz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's some of the stupidest crap I have ever heard. Ocean plowing? Wind powered pumps? ICEBERGS?
    This sounds like bad sci-fi.
    Why not use common sense, as in, DON'T LIVE IN A CITY THAT IS UNDER SEA LEVEL IN A HURICANE PRONE AREA! If are stupid enough to ignore that first peice of common sense, at least get the fuck out of the way if a hurricane comes.

  6. Foolish arrogance by linuxbikr · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The poster with the NOAA information covered why trying to stop hurricanes is pointless. It's been tried.

    As to the relationship between global warming and hurricanes, there is none. Hurricane frequency occurs on a natural cycle of warmer SSTs (sea surface temperatures) in the Atlantic. This is a real phenomena that is not understood but does occur. When SSTs rise by 1 degree C on average in the above the equator in the eastern Atlantic, you get more hurricanes. Plain and simple. This rise in temperate occurs on roughly 20-30 year cycles. This is nothing new. The problem is, coastal building in the US occured during a natural "low" in hurricane activity. The intensity picked up in the 1990s and we're right in the middle of that "high" intensity phase now. When SSTs in the Atlantic cool (sometime in the next decade and head south of the equator), hurricane frequency will fall. We are talking thousands of square miles of ocean here that feed these storms. You think an iceberg and a couple of subs trolling the waters is going to affect that?

    Articles like this are so comedic. Despite being a race that has created nuclear weapons, we have nothing on Nature when it comes to brute energy expenditure. "Stupidity" does not even begin to describe the simplistic and child-like thinking that produced this article. Only human arrogance in thinking that we can solve or alter anything to suit our desires can produce tripe such as this article.

    Money and time is best spent on prediction, warning, disaster planning and recovery and further research into hurricane genesis so we can better understand how these storms come to be and how we can live with them better. And even then, it is an inexact science. People are better served by showing some awe and humility towards nature as history has shown, whenever Man tries to mess with Nature, Nature wins.

  7. Off topic, slightly ranty, but I have a point by syukton · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Or if the Governor of Louisiana had specifically asked the federal government for certain kinds of assistance...

    She said "We need your help, we need everything." but she did not specifically request federal military support. Her press secretary said that she believed that such a specific request was not necessary.

    I'm pretty sure that there are rules which regulate the deployment of federal troops within state borders. I think that it is indeed something that must be formally and specifically requested.

    CNN.com has free video now, but it's free video that you can't link to (hardly "free" if you ask me). Go to CNN's homepage and watch the clip "Miscommunication Delayed Response" to hear the governor say to her press secretary in what looks like a rehearsal or perhaps a moment that the governor believed the cameras were not yet recording. She said on Wednesday (to her press secretary in a whisper while being recorded): "I really need to call for the military, I should have started that in the first call." These are pretty damning words to be said on tape.

    Katrina was indeed predicted, and one of the bureaucrats said "We need your help, we need everything you've got." which meant to her "send planes, trains, buses, boats, food, water, shelters, etc" but she did not communicate such requests specifically.

    And let's not forget the fact that Louisiana's National Guard are mostly deployed over in Iraq. They were not even in place or ready to help the state cope with the disaster, because the Federal government thinks they can be put to better use overseas. Let's also not forget that since 2003, the levy budget has been but a pittance due to lack of contribution by the federal government because of, specifically, needing to fund the Iraq war.

    One more thing we can't forget is that a man can make a phone call and order thousands of people to be killed instantly by napalm, but that same man cannot make a phone call and order thousands of water bottles dropped on a city ravaged by a hurricane? Think about this one real carefully: We can more quickly and capably kill our purported enemies than we can help our own citizens. Is that the kind of nation you want to be a part of?

    We do not need to control hurricanes, we need to control our government.

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    1. Re:Off topic, slightly ranty, but I have a point by Rob_Ogilvie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And let's not forget the fact that Louisiana's National Guard are mostly deployed over in Iraq. They were not even in place or ready to help the state cope with the disaster, because the Federal government thinks they can be put to better use overseas.

      Fool - there were national guard left in the state, and the state government let them sit around. The state government was advised to preposition everything they had before the storm hit to help keep order and control post-hurricane. They did not. They heeded no warnings.

      Let's also not forget that since 2003, the levy budget has been but a pittance due to lack of contribution by the federal government because of, specifically, needing to fund the Iraq war.

      I keep wondering why it's the federal government's job to build levies in NO, a city. Nevertheless, it would have taken a whole hell of a lot more money than what was asked for by *anybody* to get the levies category-4-hurricane-ready.

      So yeah, the government screwed up bigtime... but it was the state's and city's faults entirely. It isn't the federal government's job to protect states in this situation... mereley to augment or aid them.

      --
      Rob
    2. Re:Off topic, slightly ranty, but I have a point by killproc · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Yes, and I think that the point is on the top of your head...

      What Hurricane Katrina exposed was the psychological consequences of the welfare state. What we consider "normal" behavior in an emergency is behavior that is normal for people who have values and take the responsibility to pursue and protect them. People with values respond to a disaster by fighting against it and doing whatever it takes to overcome the difficulties they face. They don't sit around and complain that the government hasn't taken care of them. And they don't use the chaos of a disaster as an opportunity to prey on their fellow men.

      But what about criminals and welfare parasites? Do they worry about saving their houses and property? They don't, because they don't own anything. Do they worry about what is going to happen to their businesses or how they are going to make a living? They never worried about those things before. Do they worry about crime and looting? But living off of stolen wealth is a way of life for them.

      People living in piles of their own trash, while petulantly complaining that other people aren't doing enough to take care of them and then shooting at those who come to rescue them--this is not just a description of the chaos at the Superdome. It is a perfect summary of the 40-year history of the welfare state and its public housing projects.

      The welfare state--and the brutish, uncivilized mentality it sustains and encourages--is the man-made disaster that explains the moral ugliness that has swamped New Orleans. And that is the story that no one is reporting.

      --
      When you die, on your deathbed, you will receive total consciousness. So I got that goin' for me, which is nice.
    3. Re:Off topic, slightly ranty, but I have a point by Gulthek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. We should cut off those parasites and let them die like the animals they are. Ticks get a cigarette...

      Yeah, hear how insane that is? BTW, cite examples of the welfare parasite that aren't from tv or Ronald Reagan's (and the conservatives that follow) old and tired whinings. Oh, wait. That's a myth!

      The truth is that welfare *penalized* people for working while on the system. But the Personal Responsibility and Work Act of 1996 took a step in the right direction and, guess what?, tons of people on welfare jumped at the chance to work and contribute without losing everything for it.

  8. Tone down the rhetoric, please... by bigtallmofo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It means less celebration of rampant excess (SUV) and more smarter management of your technology (hybrids). Forget this hurricane problem. Fix the society which fosters global warming ..

    I think SUV drivers are morons. I think any technology that truly decreases our energy consumption (including hybrids) is fantastic. I think global warming is real, man-made and bad.

    What I'm trying to say is, I agree with your energy conservation philosophy. What I disagree with is your cavalier attitude toward assigning blame for a hurricane. Your spouting of your radical position that soccer moms' SUVs are causing hurricanes does more harm to the energy conservation cause than good. Where is your evidence? How do you refute the argument that hurricanes have been happening for at least hundreds of years?

    Unfortunately, your argument is no more scientifically valid than the the people think it was caused by an angry god. And anyone that hears you spouting such nonsense only thinks less of you and the cause you stand for. That's bad for everyone.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  9. BREAKING NEWS: Hurricanes are big. by lemonlimeandbitters · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just so we're clear on this: I've done graduate level work in Atmospheric Science. Actually, just for fun I'm working on my PhD right now and I've worked as a research contractor for a bunch of years. And in my time I've picked up a few useful nuggets of information.

    A couple of relevant tidbits to the topic at hand:
    1. Hurricanes are big. Really big.
    2. Humans are little. Really little compared to hurricanes.
    3. So are ships, planes, icebergs and nuclear weapon detonations.

    The question is not whether we can change hurricanes but rather whether we can do anything at all that a hurricane could even notice. I think there's a story about some crazy king-guy ordering the tide to stay out (and getting rather wet), but I'm sure that's not relevant to the topic at hand.

    nb: There is of course a side issue, specifically whether anyone other than the most flagrantly stupid people would screw around with the dominant mechanism by which excess energy is re-distributed throughout the atmosphere and what incidentally may be a major source of fresh water to the US south east. But nevermind.

  10. Storms Efficiently Dissipate Energy by yancey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems to me all such storms, including typhoons and tornados, are the most efficient way to dissipate energy from a given area, or nature wouldn't do it that way. So my thinking leads me to believe that if we stop a lot of these storms then nature will find other ways to dissipate the energy and one of those ways could be that the energy builds up to a point where we cannot prevent it and we get a super-destructive monster storm. That or we have other very significant and destructive release of that energy, like huge waves. I say we focus on reducing the energy available to such storms, i.e. reducing "global warming".

    --
    Ouch! The truth hurts!
  11. In another such example... by dpilot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about forest fires?

    We've begun to learn that forest fires are a natural part of the forest lifecycle, and that by suppressing the normal small fires, we've really messed things up royally.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  12. This is something i know a good deal about by CiXeL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    since i relocated from los angeles to homestead, florida the site which was ground zero for hurricane andrew in 1992.

    firstly, without hurricanes this place will rot. sediment builds up, pesticides, fertilizers from agricultural runoff, etc. or just waste. hurricanes are a cleaning process and an evolutionary pressure on this area. invasive species are killed off in hurricanes easily while nonnative plants thrive. the stir up of sediment in the ocean which hurricanes then dispurse to the sea allows the coral to grow closer to the shore which is currently being pushed out farther and farther due to pollution. at least florida needs hurricanes or youll watch the everglades die.

    secondly, hurricane damage on this scale only happens once. it happened here in 1992 with andrew. it was a whole bunch of trailer parks before that. i have talked with coworkers quietly in miami who say it was the best thing to happen because it was such a dump and now everything is brand shining new. i live in one of those new complexes. when katrina came by us as a strong category 1 our complex had almost no damage at all but surrounding cities were flooded. see my pictures at http://www.cixel.com/photos/katrina/
    wood construction down here is illegal now. if the gulf coast rebuilds with concrete block (and concrete roofs) they will never have a problem again. you could throw a category 5 at our complex and it wouldnt flinch. also all the vegetation is nonnative so as much as it will get beaten and thrashed about it will recover and also not create alot of flying projectiles. new orleans is another matter, the area below sea level they should abandon.

    What im saying is though. this scale of damage only occurs once. with modern building techniques this sort of thing is a problem of the past.
    how often do you hear puerto rico whining about hurricanes and they get hit by them all the time?

  13. Re:Easy way to control hurricanes: by general_re · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...the US produces nearly a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions

    Exactly what you'd expect, considering that the US makes about a quarter of the world's stuff. Measure pollution versus output, and I think you'll find that the US is quite a bit more efficient than many countries.

    --
    ABSURDITY, n.: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion.
  14. Re:Tech by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Except that hurricanes spread the heat from the equatorial regoins toward the polar regoins. Thus providing much more livable contions across much of the planet. While hurricanes can be bad, they are localized problems. Removing/controlling/reducing them would be a globalized problem.

    If people are willing to live where these localized problems occur, they need to accept the consequences and not scream that they're having these problems. Hurricanes, earthquakes, flooding, drought, heat and cold are all known problems. Either deal with them or move. But don't try to affect the rest of the planet just to solve your shortsightedness.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  15. Re:Followup Article? by Analogy+Man · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I second this one! My favorite test question of all time (from graduate school) estimate the power of a thunderstorm, express your answer in race car engines would serve to highlight the impracticality of this nonsense. If I recall correctly, a 10km wide thunderstorm would have the power of many millions of racecars. A hurricane is as much as 100 times the scale and power goes by volume so...1,000,000 times one thunderstorm....thats thousands of trillions of race car engines of power!!!

    Whatever chemical/physical jujitsu you want to try a "reasonableness test" isn't passed with this.

    So from a human perspective it would be pissing in the wind trying to change a hurricane. You might as well have the population near the gulf coast go to the beach and yell and the storms to stay away.

    --
    When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
  16. To continue a theme in this thread... by benhocking · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But now, try to express the power of a race car engine expressed as butterfly-wing flaps/second!

    --
    Ben Hocking
    Need a professional organizer?