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?"

Comments

Anyone bother reading the article?

[GreasyBloater]

I didn't.

Does anyone else find time and time again that reading these long Scientific American or PopSci articles leaves you wondering why you just wasted so much time on it?

I always end up wondering why the author couldn't have just condensed it down to a few paragraphs without losing anything.

So many words, so little said.

Buzz

Re:Global Impact

[SatanicPuppy]

'Cause Baptists can't handle the truth?

Adding a little rational thought to the religious aspect...always a bad idea...the concept of an omnibenevolent deity rests on the idea that humans are the only important thing in the world.

Observational data would suggest that the world does not find this to be the case. Assuming the world bows to the will of god (which is a given, vis a vis Omnipotence) this would seem to suggest that either we are not the most important thing in the world, or god is not omnibenevolent.

Natural disasters and other such "Acts of God" definitely add a new dimension to the traditional problem of evil. Can't really blame that one on free will.