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?"
blows, it really blows
This strikes me as the perfect segue from Bad Science in the Press.
-ShadowRanger
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?
Could we use massive wind energy plants to remove energy from the weather system?
Crivens! I kicked meself in me own heid!
Jeez. This was on the news what 3 day ago? Anyway.. I don't know if this is an up and coming theonion.com but here it is - a pretty twisted article about how the Yakuza & the KGB are behind it. I give the article 4 stars just based on the WTF factor alone.
How about a hurricane *generator*.. but make it go in the exact opposite of the target storm.. now that'd be something I'd wanna see
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.
We are already 'customising the climate' with gloabal warming.
/. article I read earlier today: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/11/171 6205&tid=172&tid=218/ The Six Dumbest Ideas in Computer Security
What's to say that this sort of 'controlled' weather manipulation won't cause more long term damage than it'll save.
Any manipulation to something not fully understood is probably going to cause more harm than good.
Money would be better spent rebuilding city's infrastructure less vunrable in the first place
This reminds me of a
This is a common question and there were indeed some experiments at hurricane modification. Most of the common ideas, including some of the ones that the original author proposes, are explained it the NOAA FAQ on tropical storms in the section TROPICAL CYCLONE MODIFICATION AND MYTHS.
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.
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
Ever hear of Chaos theory . .(warning :Sarcasm soon to come) ..A small change in a dynamic systems initial conditions can result in a wide variations later in the cycle . .. we shoot all the butterflies in the world.
the butterfly effect in specific
Well to summarise
Edward Lorenz's theory was beautifully analogised to the butterfly effect .
so as a more sensible solution , I advise that if we want to stop hurricanes
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
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.
Whilst the post you replied to was stupid, Hurricanes have been around for longer than fossil burning humans, yours was possibly worse. If you think six billion humans and the extreme amounts of crap they put out per capita especially you yanks, then you're not just self effacing, you're retarded.
Suppose we were able to steer a hurricane in a limited way using any of these water temperature techniques.
Suppose also that there is a hurricane headed for a major city - say, Miami or New Orleans. And we employ this steering mechanism.
The result is now that some agency decided that a smaller community - say, Mobile AL or Pensacola - bears the brunt of a hurricane instead of the larger city.
Wouldn't the residents of the affected area have some serious legal recourse against whomever "steered" the storm toward them? Is this steering ethical, given that we're essentially choosing one group of people to sustain hardship and death over another?
What about military use of this technology? Instant economic catastrophe for regimes you happen not to care for, whether you're in a shooting war or not. Or even political - making sure a red state gets the storm rather than a blue state. Given the current polarity of American politics, I could certainly see such a decision being made in a smoky backroom somewhere - buried so deep it'll never see the light of day.
Until these storms can be eradicated completely - the ethical and moral questions related to affecting a storm's path and the potential for misuse of that technology would seem to outweigh its usefulness.
Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 (Introduced in Senate)
thomas.loc.gov
S 517 IS
109th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 517
To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
March 3, 2005
Mrs. HUTCHISON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
A BILL
To establish the Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the 'Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005'.
SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of this Act to develop and implement a comprehensive and coordinated national weather modification policy and a national cooperative Federal and State program of weather modification research and development.
SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) BOARD- The term 'Board' means the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.
(2) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR- The term 'Executive Director' means the Executive Director of the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.
(3) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT- The term 'research and development' means theoretical analysis, exploration, experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings and theories of scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the experimental production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials, and processes.
(4) WEATHER MODIFICATION- The term 'weather modification' means changing or controlling, or attempting to change or control, by artificial methods the natural development of atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms which occur in the troposphere.
SEC. 4. WEATHER MODIFICATION ADVISORY AND RESEARCH BOARD ESTABLISHED.
(a) IN GENERAL- There is established in the Department of Commerce the Weather Modification Advisory and Research Board.
(b) MEMBERSHIP-
(1) IN GENERAL- The Board shall consist of 11 members appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, of whom--
(A) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American Meteorological Society;
(B) at least 1 shall be a representative of the American Society of Civil Engineers;
(C) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National Academy of Sciences;
(D) at least 1 shall be a representative of the National Center for Atmospheric Research of the National Science Foundation;
(E) at least 2 shall be representatives of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of Commerce;
(F) at least 1 shall be a representative of institutions of higher education or research institutes; and
(G) at least 1 shall be a representati
And Europe and Asia and South America... it is not JUST the US people. Everyone has to own up to their mistakes. It is easy to point fingers when your blind to your own faults.
Found this interesting reply to the parent, from our good friends at NOAA...
Why don't we try to destroy tropical cyclones by (fill in the blank)?
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5f.html
There have been numerous techniques that we have considered over the years to modify hurricanes: seeding clouds with dry ice or Silver Iodide, cooling the ocean with cryogenic material or icebergs, changing the radiational balance in the hurricane environment by absorption of sunlight with carbon black, exploding the hurricane apart with hydrogen bombs, and blowing the storm away from land with giant fans, etc. (Some of these have been addressed in detail in this section of FAQ's.) As carefully reasoned as some of these suggestions are, they all share the same shortcoming: They fail to appreciate the size and power of tropical cyclones. For example, when Hurricane Andrew struck South Florida in 1992, the eye and eyewall devastated a swath 20 miles wide. The heat energy released around the eye was 5,000 times the combined heat and electrical power generation of the Turkey Point nuclear power plant over which the eye passed. The kinetic energy of the wind at any instant was equivalent to that released by a nuclear warhead. Perhaps if the time comes when men and women can travel at nearly the speed of light to the stars, we will then have enough energy for brute-force intervention in hurricane dynamics.
Human beings are used to dealing with chemically complex biological systems or artificial mechanical systems that embody a small amount (by geophysical standards) of high-grade energy. Because hurricanes are chemically simple --air and water vapor -- introduction of catalysts is unpromising. The energy involved in atmospheric dynamics is primarily low-grade heat energy, but the amount of it is immense in terms of human experience.
Attacking weak tropical waves or depressions before they have a chance to grow into hurricanes isn't promising either. About 80 of these disturbances form every year in the Atlantic basin, but only about 5 become hurricanes in a typical year. There is no way to tell in advance which ones will develop. If the energy released in a tropical disturbance were only 10% of that released in a hurricane, it's still a lot of power, so that the hurricane police would need to dim the whole world's lights many times a year.
Perhaps some day, somebody will come up with a way to weaken hurricanes artificially. It is a beguiling notion. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could do it ?
Perhaps the best solution is not to try to alter or destroy the tropical cyclones, but just learn to co-exist better with them. Since we know that coastal regions are vulnerable to the storms, building codes that can have houses stand up to the force of the tropical cyclones need to be enforced. The people that choose to live in these locations should be willing to shoulder a fair portion of the costs in terms of property insurance - not exorbitant rates, but ones which truly reflect the risk of living in a vulnerable region. In addition, efforts to educate the public on effective preparedness needs to continue. Helping poorer nations in their mitigation efforts can also result in saving countless lives. Finally, we need to continue in our efforts to better understand and observe hurricanes in order to more accurately predict their development, intensification and track.
Personally, I think you're right. Let's stay above sea level and out of hurricane/flood prone areas but that's not always a simple task.
I think his ideas are interesting, maybe not plausable, but interesting.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Seems kind of ironic don't you think? :-P
Seriously though.. I think I remember reading somewhere about "sowing" clouds for rain.. and that it had unpredictable results, I imagine that Toying with events as large as a Hurricane would be like taming a pit-bull with a cattle prod...
"Consider how lucky you are that life has been good to you so far. Alternatively, if life hasn't been good to you so far
Phil Shapiro seems to know very little about submarines, or boats in general.
First of all, nuclear submarines are a lot faster than what he says (25 mph, less than 20 knots). Even in 1995 when he wrote the FA.
But most of all, he imagines that a 0.5 mile wide "plow" would only slow them down by 40% -- from 25 mph to 15 mph. My guess (based on experience from commercial fishing on not from submarines) is that a 0.5 mile wide plow would slow the sub down to 0 mph (or 0 knots, for that matter).
If the rest of his ideas are as sound as that one, well...
Congratulations! Now we are the Evil Empire
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.
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.
blame the next hundred years of hurricanes on the idea that we did not approve it soon enough?
Between your post and the fat american SUV post it makes me wonder if insightful is should be inCITEful here.
In other words, nothing will satisfy those who seek to blame everything either on Global Warming or America.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You know, i am definitely not a fan of SUVs, but if you think about it you really can't complain about them that much.
You are sitting there at your computer browsing Slashdot. The utility company is (most likely) using up oil to run your ISP's computers and your own computer. I don't know how much, but it's there, and browsing Slashdot sure as hell isn't any more essential to your life than driving an SUV to work is.
SUVs suck, yeah, but you can't sit there and honestly complain about recreational oil usage until you cut it out yourself. No more video games, no more Slashdot, no more CD-player, no more satellite television. Or not until you've got all of it running on some renewable resource, anyway. Then you can complain about SUVs.
Take a look at the actual NOAA data, and you find that for the past several decades we have been in a *lull* of hurricane activity, and that's just recently started to swing back the other way.
The NYT has this to say:
Only on
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.
As for controling hurricanes... HORRIBLE idea. First off, you would likely kill the everglades (which depend on periods of intense wind and soaking, tropical rains). Also, the overall impact to global climate would be almost impossible to predict. We have, for example, no idea if the storms of the Atlantic and Pacific are the mechanism that ended the last ice age. If they are (small, but reasonable chance), then disipating storm energy could directy lead to shortening the time to the next ice age. Think global warming is bad? It's a hiccup in temperature change compared to a real ice age!
My rule of thumb is: don't mess with large systems that you depend on for your survival.
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.
And what better way than the "world leading superpower" (and biggest polluter) to stand up and be a role model of how things should be done?
I'm sick of this "gee we'll stop fscking up the planet only if other people also stop fscking up the planet" argument, it makes no sense, if you have to stop, you have to stop.
Anyway, I don't hear any other country being "blind to its own faults", most do admit there is a problem, in fact the US stands out quite singularly in refusing to admit there is even a problem. And if the most powerful economy in the world claims that it would be "too harmful to their economy" to implement a sustainable system, then no country can afford it. But that's not the truth.
It would be interesting if it were true... Two of those THREE are NOT american: Forbes list of largest companies (sorted by profits):
ExxonMobil (U.S.)
Royal Dutch/Shell Group (Netherlands/United Kingdom)
BP (United Kingdom)
Chevron Texaco ranks 7th (ie: not in the top 6), and is a U.S. company.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
The full article suggests that the first testbed for the technology would be enhancing rainfall. It is to be assumed that this would mean enhancing rainfall in areas that don't get enough of it -- the American midwest, drought-stricken areas of Africa, etc. Realistically, that would probably help more people overall than hurricane prevention, although hurricane prevention would probably win as far as preventing property damage goes. It's hard to argue with the idea of keeping the world's breadbaskets well hydrated, am I right?
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!
Our government can't possibly control the weather!
It's seriously time to wake up, people!
Real programmers can write assembly code in any language. -- Larry Wall
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.
It would be ironic if it was found that the intensity of these hurricanes has been made worse by the lack of US participation in the Kyoto Policy, or their lack of any serious environmental policy.
I admit that The Day After Tommorow is possibly a bit of an extreme case, but there was a message the film makers were trying to send.
While I may land up with bad karma for this on /. it's nothing like the bad karma the US will have when the whole world starts having to deal with the agricultural difficulties of changing climates and weather patterns.
According to this story, the Japanese can already control hurricanes.
(And no, I don't take this seriously.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Several years back now (1995) Hurricane Opal did considerable damage as far inland as Atlanta. I know just in my neighborhood at the time the smashed trees wiped out quite a few houses. This was not any sort of minor event.
Hurricanes start to dissipate over land, but it is a huge variable how much this really is, it isn't near total or immediate, and they also have the potential to spawn a lot of tornadoes.
The Kyoto agreement is, hopefully, the first small step in a long process which will fundamentally change the way in which we as a species interact with our environment. Now I'm not niave enough to believe that Kyoto will solve much, if anything, itself. I'm well aware that in evolutionary timescales the industrial revolution occured just 10 minutes ago and that it will take time for us to learn how best to use our marvelous (and I really mean marvelous) new technologies. However, if nothing else the Kyoto agreement stands as a acknowledgement of responsibility and a commitment for change.
The US (however it chooses to govern itself) has repeatedly failed to engage on this issue. As the supposed most powerful man on the planet, the failure of the US president even to acknowledge the problem doesn't represent much progress. Then again, I watch for 3 or 4 days as a quite horrific looking weather system closed in on the poor souls living in the Missippi delta and president Bush did precious little to save them. What chance then, that he will act on some less imminent or specific, but far more devistating scientific predictions?
-- "Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!"
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?
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
Senate Bill S. 517, introduced by Senator Kay Hutchinson (R-TX), on March 3, 2005 is pretty interesting:
S. 517: A Bill to Establish a Weather Modifications Operations and Research Board, and for other purposes.
Huh? Can this be for real? You bet: Clicky.
Also interesting, this is supposed to take effect on October 1, 2005! It has only been introduced, so this is unlikely at this point. But still the timing is creepy.
Thanks to Richard C Hoagland's Enterprise Mission web site for the information. Richard is way out there sometimes, but he definately has great credentials.
-- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
There was an article several years ago in the science-fiction/science-fact magazine ANALOG titled, "Defeating the Son of Andrew". It suggested building a huge tall tower designed to transport warm moist air near ground level (of ocean) upward, where condensation and wind-generation would happen inside the tower (source of fresh water and energy!), and because it is supposed to draw warm moist air from miles around, any approaching hurricane will be out of luck -- the energy that would have helped feed the hurricane has already been extracted.
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.
Isn't nationality somewhat meaningless for these big super-corporations? What does nationality actually mean for businesses that operate multinationally?
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
I'm not suggesting it, the makers of that compound are, and they are actively trying to get government contracts as hurricane dispersers.
Amazing isn't it? Imagine the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico covered in an inch layer of insoluble jelly...imagine it washing up on shore...It's a nightmare, and yet, they are totally serious.
ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
But now, try to express the power of a race car engine expressed as butterfly-wing flaps/second!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Yeah, I'm sure New Orleans, as both a city and a port will do just fine if we don't allow any residences to be built there. None of those businesses need workers, we'll just replace them all with robots. That should work well.
Refusing to help people that just want to go home is being cold, regardless of what other nice things you want to do. You've got a bunch of very poor people who were stuck living in houses where they could find them. Telling them that you won't help "out of pure principle" is a pretty crappy thing to say.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
Simon, I agree with you, what a lot of people don't realize is that hurricanes actually keep our weather system stable. By controlling hurricanes, it keeps this atmospheric energy in the tropics, which will cause more and more powerful hurricanes to spawn. And assuming we develop the system to controlling weather from a pipe dream to the real thing with this fact in mind, there will be a public outcry to wipe out every hurricane before it makes landfall.
Interesting fact, but weather control has been something that we have been playing with since world war two. I'm having difficulty finding trustworthy sources out there because of Katrina and the popularity of the topic. Britain tried using a chemical for a condensation agent on rain clouds in the 40's, and it ended up causing a deadly acid rain, killing scores of people and destroying communities. We now use substances that occur in nature to "seed" clouds over the plains to hopefully make rain, but nothing too crazy.
Finally, the scary part is hurricane control is possible. A scientist has invented an agent made of biodegradable materials. These agents are held together in fine crystals that could be used to sprinkle hurricanes and the path in front of it, when these crystals come into contact with liquid water, it forms a thick gelatin layer, which would significantly halt evaporation, therefore cutting of the energy supply of the hurricane, it will act as if it just made landfall.
Unfortunately, sources are hard to come by at the moment, but these facts were featured on the discovery channel or one of their other networks on a special within the past year. If anybody would like to try to find it and post it, that may help somebody out.
Interesting fact, but weather control has ben somthing that we have been playing with since world war two. i'm having difficulty finding trustworthy sources out there because of Katrina and the popularity of the topic. Britian tried using a chemical for a condensation agent on rain clouds in teh 40's, and it ended up cauing a deadly acid rain, killing scores of people and destroying communities. We now use substnaces that occur in nature to "seed" clouds over th plains to hopefully make rain, but nothing too crazy.
Finally, the scary part is hurricane control is possible. A scientist has invented an agent made of biodegradable materials. These agents are held together in fine crystals that could be used to sprinkle hurricanes and teh path in front of it, when these crystals come into contact with liquid water, it froms a thick gelatin layer, which would significantly halt evaporation, therfore cutting of the energy supply of teh hurricane, it will act as if it just made landfall.
Unfortunately, socurces are hard to come by at the moment, but htese facts were featured on the the discovery channel or one of theirother networks on a special within the past year. if anybody would like to try to find it and post it, that may help somebody out.
"10001110101 - periodic table with a centerpiece of mind" -Clutch
Did anyone else read Phil Shapiro's article that was linked to this post? Does anyone else see a problem with stirring ocean water? Lets ignore the technical fesiblity of pulling a 1/4 mile stir stick at 15 miles per hour. (I don't care if you use a nuclear tub boat.. you're talking about a HUGE anount drag here). Stirring the top layer of ocean water to make it 2-3 degrees colded would kill nearly all of the plankton and other microorganizes that rely on the fragile thermalclines (layers of different temperature water) to survive. Killing this life would be like killing all plants on land and would wipe out a huge percentage of all ocean life... sounds like a great plan to me.
But why not tackle problems that we know we can solve? Why not just build levies that can stand up to level 5 hurricanes and institute building codes that force buildings to at least be hurricane resistant if not proof. Make those codes retroactive (though I'd wager that if you looked at most of the buildings that are 100+ and properly maintained along the gulf coast, you'd find that they were already 'up to code' because the builders realized, without CNN and the weather channel, that hurricanes rip through there regularly). It's not like we need to invent new technologies to do this sort of thing...and it makes a great deal more sense to do that than to start messing with major natural systems just so Trent Lott can have his poorly and cheaply constructed McMansion protected from a hurricane.
Nobody is saying that hurricane frequency is climbing because of human induced climate change; that's a subtle question and it could go either way.
It's a pretty simple argument, though, to suggest that when they do form, they will be able to grow to an increased extent, because they have more thermal energy to draw upon. Recent evidence at least starts to show this observationally.
see the most recent posting on realclimate for more.
mt
There certainly is a large amount of land in this world that is above sea level. Unfortunately, most of it is not clustered around the economic centers of New Orleans. A lot of these people can't afford cars, they don't have any reliable transportation, so moving out to the higher suburbs has never been an option for them. Perhaps you don't understand the geography of the area, and the way that cities tend to work. That's ok, I'm just trying to inform you.
All the land above sea level around New Orleans already has people living there. There's no more above the water New Orleans left. So we're left with a few questions. First off, can the remaining parts of New Orleans economically succeed without rebuilding the rest? I don't believe that it can. So if we don't do some rebuilding, which will unfortunately be below sea level, we'd basically be letting the city die. So the next question is, are the remaining parts of New Orleans worth saving? That's a big question with a lot of economic, social, and cultural factors. Without really having that discussion, let me just say that I think that, yes, the city is worth saving. And if that means building some new structures below sea level, then so be it. I think there are other ways to deal with the problem, ways that the city as a whole and individual structures could be designed to better cope with the problems.
There are probably parts of the city that are better left unbuilt. Places that got 20 feet of water are going to be prohibitively expensive to protect. But any place where something was destroyed should not automatically be a write-off. Pragmatism, by definition, can be cold. If you want to look at this equation purely in terms of dollar signs and probabilities, that's your call, but don't pretend that doing so makes peoples' lives irrelevant. Logic is probably the best reason out there to be heartless, but it's still heartless. Just call it what it is, and we'll admit that our priorities are different.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
This article made me think of an oft neglected factoid between the United States and Russia. Oddly enough in the official Anti-Ballistic-Missile-Treaty there is a clause that states that America is not allowed to use / deploy their weather changing weapons including HAARP against the old Soviet Union.
There is also a UN treaty circa 1976 that basically says the same thing but in more general terms, while again naming the US and Russia.
Now I hate to be 'that guy' but knowing that in all the: legalese, time, preperation, and double checking that went into the ABM treaty that the inclusion of a weather weapon cant be purely speculative or coincidental.
Ok, im taking off the tinfoil hat now (but it does make me wonder sometimes why Bush is so sure that global wearming isnt due to greenhouse gas emission.....)
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
"there are no small changes in a complex system"
(( (CRAYON) )) >
Celia hit Corpus Christi in 1970. It was an odd hurricane that most residents and weathermen thought was going to stall and dye out before it hit. Three days before it hit it was a tropical depression, when it made landfall it was Category 3 130 mph with gusts to 180 (officially), some stations reported gusts of 210 (probably tornadoes)
Around the same time there were experiments going on in the Mid-West with cloud seeding and it was speculated that someone had tried seeding the tropical depression to see what effect it had on it.
A) People die.
B) Things happen, we do not live in a controllable environment.
C) The second you stop one thing from happening, something nastier will come up and take its place.
D) Maybe messing with something as large and complicated as THE WEATHER isnt such a good idea.
E) People Die. Thats how it works. We're not going to able to ever change that. Some of us are just unlucky enough to have to die horribly.
s'wut i sed.
By the way, I suppose I can't blame people on /. for getting this wrong, since almost every major media outlet did: Not a single levee broke. All 4 breaks were in canal walls.
Levees are massive earthworks - they aren't easily "breached" but would have to be worn away (long time) or overrun.
The breaks were in the canal flood walls.
Maybe we should build more sturdy canal flood walls, but maybe it should be done by people who know what they hell they are talking about, not people who don't even know what actually broke. A lot of journalists seem to think they are experts on everything under the sun. Every time I read an article or watch a report on something in which I'm even a rank amateur I notice MAJOR inaccuracies/simplifications/lies.
Don't count on news-people to even get right reporting what the problem is, let alone the solution.
[PS. Yes - this isn't a solution either - perhaps we should talk to people in Florida, who say that after they got hit by Andrew finally learned how to evacuate properly. Get that fixed, then talk about trying to defeat hurricanes by building bigger walls...]
Lose essential liberties to get temporary safety = get only hassles and security theater.
~100 miles to the West - it would have impacted Galveston/Houston
~100 miles to the East - it would have crushed Mobile and impacted Talahassee
Why is this better?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
It is this process that functions as the global heat pump/exchange. Hurricanes seem to function a little like a release valve when the Ocean currents can't transport enough energy up north, they convert the heat into kinetic energy (big waves, big winds, evaporation of water).
Tamporing with the hurricanes would stop the release valve which would have very unpredictable consequences for the global heat exchange. It's a bad idea. Next thing you know we'll end up with a Global Superstorm like in the movie The Day After Tomorrow. No thanks.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
I have severe medical problems secondary to a spinal cord injury I suffered a decade ago. I live in unimaginable pain every second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day... IF God exists AND he allows this to happen, when I die, I'm going to shove an infinant number of baseball bats up his ass. :@
I'm waiting for WOOT to offer an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator. I need one.
I say we skip trying to find the individual butterfly responsible and eradicate the entire lot of them.
They are an Order of hate.
I'm not a Troll, it's reverse psychology.
Actually, one of the best definitions I have heard of how God is Omniscient was given by Dr. Tony Evans--a minister. He prefaced this comment by saying we should not study too long on it because it will make our heads spin. I know that's a funny statement, but after pondering a while, I did get a headache.
You see, we humans are trying to apply 3-dimensional thinking to an omnidimensional subject. God *is* omniscient because He exists at teh beginning of time and at the End of Time. His consciosness extends across the universes and time itself.
If we see it that way, we would realize that God already knows the result of any decisions he or we make because to Him, it is about to happen, is happening, and has already happened all at the same time. His demenses extend outside of our 3-dimensional physical universe, so applying 3-dimensional linear thinking does not apply.
In America today you can murder land for private profit. You can leave the corpse for all to see, and nobody calls the c
every good slashdotter knows that a gods power is a direct function of the number of worshipers said god has. d&d 101 man...
always mosh clockwise
Drought is a known problem, so we should starve rather than irrigate? Cold is a known problem so we should freeze rather than build houses?
These are strawmen. I wasn't suggesting to move rain clouds to deserts, or heat all of Canada. You just end up moving the deserts or moving the polar ice.
I'm saying, deal with your local conditions WITHOUT affecting the rest of the planet or shut up. Technology can be used with bad results too. That doesn't mean pointing that out is being luddite-ish
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Should we give up trying to cure cancer or treat heart disease because, well, as you mentioned twice, people die, that's just how it works? Some of us get malaria or tuberculosis because we are unlucky and that's just too bad for us.
We shouldn't even bother trying to make people better because, if we do, who knows what god awful thing might happened to them. Probably something worse than the original illness.
So to recap, your (A) is true, (B) is not true, (C) was pulled out of your ass, (D) is superstition, and (E) uses (A) to justify not intervening to save people's lives, which is also known to some as a circular argument.
Oddly enough in the official Anti-Ballistic-Missile-Treaty there is a clause that states that America is not allowed to use / deploy their weather changing weapons including HAARP against the old Soviet Union.
There is also a UN treaty circa 1976 that basically says the same thing but in more general terms, while again naming the US and Russia.
Now I hate to be 'that guy' but knowing that in all the: legalese, time, preperation, and double checking that went into the ABM treaty that the inclusion of a weather weapon cant be purely speculative or coincidental.
ASsuming this language actually exists, I don't see why not, actually. It's like the standard copyright notice you see on books, that lists various means of reproduction, then says "...or any other means of recording or storage..." It doesn't mean there's some super-secret means of data storage that "they" aren't telling us about. In this example, I'm sure the stereotypical paranoia on both sides about the other's military and intelligence operations led them to list everything that could even remotely conceivably ever be used or developed during the length of time the treaty was in force. On the off chance that we (or they) developed actual working weather control, neither side wanted the other to be able to say "Haha, SALT II doesn't say anything about weather, EAT OUR CATEGORY 6 HURRICANE MOSKVA, BITCHES!" (Insert suitable evil laugh here; white cat optional but recommended.)
I recently saw a conspiracy-theory site make much of language in some type of new law or regulation that forbade US military to do certain kinds of weapons tests in the vicinity of cities without notifying local authorities. Among the listed weapons was chemtrails. This was cited as Absolute Proof that chemtrails existed and were regularly used by the US military in civilian areas. Same thing applies -- it's just being safe, OK? (Or in that case, was more likely a misguided attempt at reassuring the tinfoil-hat brigade.)
-- Old Man Kensey
Not that it's reasonable to chalk up Katrina specifically to global warming, but there is now solid scientific research that suggests that global warming is not increasing the number of cyclone-type storm systems, but is increasing their strength, longevity, and overall energy level.
t /abs/nature03906.html
Please refer to: "Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years" by Kerry Emanuel, an established researcher in the field.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurren
This is a new direction in research, and the overall data in hurricanes is not overwhelmingly extensive, but the data does not look inconclusive.
In short, global warming may well cause an increase in destruction caused by hurricanes in an ongoing and increasing basis. This is especially true when you combine their flooding potential with the rising oceans.
-josh