Back when I was working on Hurricane-LES (early 2000's), folks again started (re-)discussing the possibility of using surfactants (e.g. vegetable-oil spill) to limit latent-heat flux--and thus storm intensification. See e.g. Katz in Physics today (2007)...
But the amounts needed don't quite work out, given non-random dispersion, and in particular the breaking of waves.
Thanks to several inputs so far to my naive question. You all make me humble to understand that human actions are order of magnitudes smaller than making a dent to nature forces.
I think letting a hurricane run its course is vastly preferable to having to deal with nuclear fallout.
Ín addition to Mark's response I suggest to make people better prepared for such events. Although one cannot remove every risk, but one can reduce quite a lot of risks with the result that human suffering and loss of property can be less than it often is.
I wish that I had a nickel for every hair-brained scheme people have sent to me about getting rid of hurricanes; these ideas have including nuclear bombs, heavy artillery, diaper absorbent material, oatmeal (yes, oatmeal, to sop up all the moisture - not kidding), towing icebergs from the north and south pole, sonic booms from jet fighters, using four C-5 transport planes to throw a net around it and move it (again, this was a real inquiry), dry ice, underwater turbines to stir up cold water from the bottom, etc., etc., etc. People must think that the environment is some kind of video game - really nuclear fallout is okay??. Amazing the lengths people will go to do this, but they won't even consider spending a penny to make coastal communities more resilient and better able to survive these things. Bermuda is a great example of a place that does this the right way - perhaps it's because they are in the path of strong tropical cyclones in the North Atlantic almost every year. These eruptions of "fantastic" ideas to rid us of hurricanes (same for tornadoes) happens every time there is an active season. Actually, for all the destruction that tropical cyclones bring, they are also part of the planet's natural water cycle - I have seen severe droughts broken by these storms. Again, since people live in places that can be impacted here, then we should be doing things to allow sustainability. Not downplaying the critical current situation in Puerto Rico; and that is even more of a justification for investing in doing things the right way rather than talking about exploding nuclear bombs allowing all that comes with that. Sorry for such a long treatise on this, but I face this all the time and it gets frustrating at how some people approach the environment as if it were some kind of video game.
Why do not we think about using cloud seading above the hurricane eye instead?
We did; it was called Operation Stormfury; and it was not successful; the results were inconclusive at best. See http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C4.html Again, it would be much better to invest in better understanding of the dynamics of tropical cyclones; such improved understanding would lead to improved models, improved landfall forecasts, and coupled with investments in coastal sustainability and infrastructure improvements, would go a long way towards helping people in these areas. But again, a lot of folks would rather spend untold amounts of money in constantly dumping things into storms rather than making communities more resilient; the latter may be more expensive initially, but in the long-run would save vast amounts of money and lives.
I totally agree that understanding the dynamics of tropical cyclone formation is most important.
Don't need nuclear weapons for a simple energy "engine" like a hurricane.
Cloud forms from condensation of water vapour that releases the tremendous power of a hurricane. If you could reverse this condensation process by spraying it with potash (which absorbs this energy by reacting with the water), then the hurricane will lose its power!
Yes, it is that simple!
Wei-Kan always asks questions that make me think. Perhaps a giant turbine design that remains stabilized in the eye or multiple ones on a giant floating flexible fan wall that mechanically couples to the major elements of vorticities and sucks off energy to be used as power or re-directed as a mechanical trap (to pressurize the eye for example) and/or used to pump sea water vertically as energy storage to be used later. Need flexible resilient inexpensive materials that can span tens of miles...maybe some plastic membranes and UHD fiber recycled from all the plastic floating in the ocean :)
Or perhaps we could simply apply the unbelievable kinds of resources ($$s and energy) to come up with any number of engineering solutions on the storm side of the equation, and instead apply solid engineering ideas to making coastal communities resilient to landfalling storms. The levels of energy that would be required (no doubt from the burning of fossil fuels) to even get close to the energy levels of a hurricane are not only a waste, are not practical, and contribute to negative feedbacks of producing even more CO2 emissions from producing all of that energy. The British island of Bermuda in the North Atlantic is a wonderful example of how resilient they are to strong Category 3 storms where they are back up and running after a couple of days after the passage of a strong hurricane. The example of the lone house left standing and essentially intact in Mexico Beach, Florida, after the passage of Category 5 Hurricane Michael was the result of spending a relative minor extra amount of money to make that happen in the design of the house. We know how to make communities resilient, but people seem resistant to that; and while folks would be willing to spend literally billions of dollars to implement any number of grand schemes to attack the storms; these same people would not spend a penny to put electrical lines underground, etc.. However, what bothers me the most is that people generally have no problem proposing any number of unsustainable engineering solutions, and expend all kinds of energy and $$s to attacking the storms instead of looking at the other end of the equation by applying more practical and doable engineering solutions in order to make coastal communities more resilient to stand up to these storms. People also do not take into account the environmental benefits of what tropical cyclones do with respect to being a heat release valve for the environment, not to mention the key role that tropical cyclones play in the global hydrological cycle (areas with drought have many times benefited from the rains of these storms); also, who makes the decisions about which storms we apply such grand engineering solutions to? Do these storms like Dorian cause untold death and destruction - yes, they do and that is tragic; so how do we apply good solid engineering coupled with the funing to make that happen? U.S. Navy warships won't even go near the outer edges of a hurricane, but somehow we are going to steer some giant floating flexible fan wall 300-400 miles into the eye of a tropical cyclone and expect it to do something? Sorry for the rant here, but I have spent over 25 years listening to grand schemes that many people (with good intentions) propose to somehow control these storms, but when people talk about coastal resiliency, that is met by calls of that being some wild-eyed socialist scheme. Resources are limited, so are we going to do this for the all of the average annual global number of 80-85 tropical cyclones per year; is someone going to choose the ones we mitigate, or would it be better to simply make communities and countries better able to deal with what will continue to be an issue as storms continue to get stronger due to a warming planet.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Phytochemistry
- Extracts