[notloc_D]

Is it possible to prevent hurricanes? The article below from here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/...2.html?sub=new ...get your own password...but I posted the entire article.


I am no environmentalist...but I think stopping a hurricane would be a horrific idea. Doesn't the environemnt correct herself? I think this would cauuse even worst damage than any hurricane in the long run...but then again, I am one of those people who believe in God.

What do you think learned environmentalists?

One Researcher's Plan: Fight Storms With Storms

By Guy Gugliotta
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, October 3, 2005; Page A07

Moshe Alamaro has a modest proposal. Get a fleet of ocean barges and mount 10 or 20 jet engines -- tails up -- on each one. Fill the barges with aviation fuel and tow them into the path of an oncoming hurricane. Light off the jets.

If everything goes as planned, the jets will trigger small tropical storms, "like backfires," Alamaro says, marginally lowering the surface ocean temperature and depriving the real hurricane of energy as it gets closer to shore.

Less energy means less power, and less power can turn tigers like hurricanes Katrina and Rita into relative pussycats.

It is not clear how much support Alamaro has for his concept, which he defines as a "salient" that outdistances conventional thinking "by leaps and springs." But his zeal highlights the increased interest of scientists and laypeople alike in finding something -- anything -- to avoid another 2005.

A solution, unfortunately, does not loom on the horizon. Improved weather forecasting and the advent of satellite imagery have made the paths and dimensions of hurricanes much more predictable, but greater knowledge, while helpful, does not solve the problem. Hurricanes, as old boxers might say, are like fighting Sugar Ray Robinson: You know you're going to get hit, but there's still nothing you can do about it.

"I will go out on a limb and say, eventually, we will accomplish this," said Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. But by "this," Emanuel means "disaster avoidance, rather than weather control."

The trick is to introduce a "perturbation" in a hurricane -- a variation in moisture, wind speed, temperature or pressure -- so that the hurricane weakens or veers out to sea. The strategy uses the principle that a small, early change in a complex "chaotic" system such as a hurricane can have large, and benign, effects later on.

Alamaro's "free jet" plan is designed to create a temperature perturbation. He said he could test the concept -- in a remote part of the Pacific and in the hurricane off-season -- for about $10 million, by using junker jet engines from mothballed B-52s in Arizona.

"We have the jets and the barge, but we don't have knowledge about the effects and we don't have the knowledge about hurricanes," Alamaro said in a telephone interview. "A test would entice the necessary studies to make it feasible."

Perhaps. Alamaro, a research affiliate at the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences & Technology, outlined his strategy at this year's annual meeting of the Weather Modification Association, amid "a lot of commotion."

This, in part, was because atmospheric scientists are skittish, Alamaro said: "They know that weather modification would give an unbelievable boost to atmospheric science, but they don't want to support it because of the stigma that it is some sort of black art."

This is true, said J. Greg Glenn, a civilian who studies weather modification at Florida's Eglin Air Force Base, and who is interested in enlisting Alamaro in a hurricane-mitigation project: "This isn't going to go away as junk science," he said. Glenn is not as interested in Alamaro's free jets as in an idea promoted by Emanuel: spraying a "monolayer film" on the ocean in front of a hurricane to inhibit the storm's ability to pick up heat energy and moisture from the sea surface

And Emanuel, a top U.S. atmospheric scientist, is not an Alamaro fan: "I hate to sound pessimistic, but Moshe's strategy requires many orders of magnitude of energy more than what he's talking about, and the backfires would have to be almost as strong as the hurricane itself," Emanuel said. "I think, unfortunately, it falls into the category of nutty ideas."

Alamaro noted that in the 1970s the Soviet Union formed clouds on several occasions by using jet engines on land, a more difficult feat than in the tropical sea, and he dismissed Emanuel's criticism. "I say that Kerry Emanuel is not impressed by any idea but his own idea."

Regardless of the method, most atmospheric scientists would probably agree that manipulating hurricanes is not only an uncertain scientific undertaking but a potential catastrophe in several ways, if intended results are not achieved.

If scientists promise to save New Orleans and fail, they will be sued. Or if they hit Mississippi instead, they will be sued. If they promise to save New Orleans and hit Mexico, they will create an international incident. "Who takes the blame?" Emanuel asked. "It's a horrific political problem."

Hurricanes form in the eastern Atlantic as clusters of thunderstorms that pick up heat and moisture from surface water in the tropics. As the vapor rises, it cools and condenses into clouds and rain, releasing heat that causes the air to rise, repeating the cycle.

Air and moisture are drawn into the system in larger and larger volume, causing the storm to grow and begin to turn in sympathy with Earth's rotation and to move west, driven by trade winds. Alamaro seeks to duplicate this process on a mini-scale.

Modeling hurricanes "is a fine art," said Ross N. Hoffman, a principal scientist at the Lexington, Mass.-based firm Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc. "The models vary in complexity. For water, one model may describe only relative humidity, while another may use hundreds of variables to describe all the different sizes of water and ice particles."

The key to successful modeling is to start a forecast with the most accurate data available, said Hoffman, who developed a method that constantly refines the opening benchmark in light of later information.

Modeling it, however, is not the same as doing it, and Hoffman offered no guidance on whether the future will be one of free jets, monolayer films, cloud seeding, spraying the atmosphere with soot to shield the sea surface from the sun's rays -- or something else.

But what Hoffman probably has shown, Emanuel said, is that it is better to perturb a hurricane earlier, when slight changes can be introduced relatively cheaply, rather than later, when change becomes impossible except at outrageous cost.

"The trouble is that there's a trade-off between energy and information," Emanuel said. "The further in advance you do it, the smaller the energy you need but the more unpredictable the effect."

[Pendergast]

I personally like this technique:



That was an original idea from that author (he mave have picked it up elsewhere though).

Using 2 crewed missiles, one with a nuke, the other one a classic explosive, you litterally blow away the turbulence before it hits the land by blowing the nuke on top and the classical charge at the bottom.

[OldManMac]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in652303.shtml

Sapping A Hurricane's Strength
SAN JUAN, P.R., Oct. 29, 2004
(AP) Imagine a world where microwave beams, a biodegradable oil slick or a shower of silver iodide from a plane would be enough to weaken or deflect a hurricane, saving thousands of lives.

Scientists say applications are decades away but the research is under way, an announcement that comes during a busy and deadly hurricane season in the Caribbean and Florida.

The techniques under study have not been tested on a real hurricane, but researchers using computer models say they have practiced introducing variations in precipitation, evaporation and air temperature to sap a hurricane's strength or redirect it.

The researchers say these changes could be brought about by beaming microwaves from a satellite to heat water vapor around a storm, or by using a biodegradable oil slick to limit ocean evaporation, the source of a storm's energy.

"Our research shows that modifying hurricanes could be possible one day," said Ross Hoffman, lead scientist with the U.S.-based consulting firm Atmospheric and Environmental Research Inc. Hoffman published an article about his research in this month's Scientific American magazine.

Funded by a $500,000 NASA grant, Hoffman said he has simulated 1992 hurricanes Iniki and Andrew and introduced subtle changes in computer models that altered the storms.

For Hurricane Iniki, which ravaged the Hawaiian island of Kauai, Hoffman changed conditions including temperature and humidity, and the simulated hurricane took a 60-mile swing west, missing Kauai.

With Andrew, the simulated hurricane still had damaging winds in Florida and the Bahamas but it was reduced from a severe Category 3 to Category 1.

Some experts are skeptical of fiddling with nature. The basic concept of Hoffman's research is sound but modifying hurricanes likely won't be possible anytime soon, said Frank Marks, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's lab in Miami.

"It's kind of silly at this point," said Marks, director of hurricane research for the lab. "People don't realize how much energy we're talking about and the area involved. It's immense."

Hoffman said although applications are decades away and contingent on funding, his research suggests microwaves beamed from space could weaken or move storms.

In a separate project, research and inventing company Dyn-O-Mat Inc. also is studying how to weaken storms.

The project involves dispersing a super-absorbent powder, turning a hurricane's moisture into solidified gel, company president J.D. Dutton said. He said the powder — a "polymer-based substance" — has made clouds dissipate when sprinkled over them.

The Jupiter, Florida-based company eventually hopes to sell its patented idea to the reinsurance industry — companies that provide insurance to insurers — and governments if it has any impact on subduing hurricanes, Dutton said.

He said Dyn-O-Mat has contracted Evergreen International Aviation Inc., based in McMinnville, Oregon, to spray its powder from planes during next year's hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30.

The company doesn't need permission from any authority because the trials would be done over international waters, Dutton said. He said the powder used is nontoxic and the environmental effects would be minimal.

But the idea of controlling the weather has moral and environmental implications.

While the U.S. military is not involved with Hoffman's project, the Lexington, Massachusetts-based Atmospheric and Environmental Research counts the U.S. Defense Department as a client.

Hoffman said humanity should not worry about "weather wars."

"There is a U.N. convention in place that bans using weather modification as a weapon," he said.

Hoffman said the question is what could happen if a country modifies its weather, later causing effects such as drought elsewhere. "It would not be war, but it could have serious implications."

The U.S. government conducted hurricane research between 1962 and 1983 in a project dubbed "Stormfury." Government planes seeded clouds surrounding a hurricane's eyewall with silver iodide, which was supposed to alter the storm's eye and cause decreased wind.

"The results were ambiguous and the program was discontinued," Marks said.

While wind speeds decreased by 10 to 30 percent in four hurricanes, it couldn't be determined whether it was due to human intervention or nature. Hoffman said silver iodide remains a possible tool.

During the U.S. project, Cuban President Fidel Castro complained it was a means of warfare because rains and floods devastated the Cuban sugar crop. Mexico also claimed the U.S. research was depriving it of moisture and hurting agriculture.

Though many questions remain, some hurricane survivors say the research offers hope.

"I'm still trying to get things back in order and if there's something that could be done to avoid a reoccurrence, then I applaud that effort," said Leroy Francois, 29, whose home in Grenada was destroyed by Hurricane Ivan last month and who has been living with a neighbor ever since.

[notloc_D]

yeah...but why? Thats my question. If you stop hurricanes, what is the adverse efect, if any?

[RIRedinPA]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

Is it possible to prevent hurricanes? The article below from here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/...2.html?sub=new ...get your own password...but I posted the entire article.


I am no environmentalist...but I think stopping a hurricane would be a horrific idea. Doesn't the environemnt correct herself? I think this would cauuse even worst damage than any hurricane in the long run...but then again, I am one of those people who believe in God.

What do you think learned environmentalists?

Hurricanes, floods, fire etc. are natures way of maintaining balance, when humans try to defeat those efforts they typically come back to bite us in a bad way. Remember those summers of huge wild fires which in part were a result of 50 or so odd years of zero fire tolerance. Or how about the floods along the Mississippi in the early nineties or more recently in New Orleans. Man may temporarily prevent natures destruciton but eventually nature has the final word.

I would imagine if we stop hurricanes from making land fall nature would either find another way to accomplish what the hurricanes fulfill or, more likely, come up with a real bad ass Cat 7 storm that would just blow through any defenses we put up.

I hope one of the lessons of Katrina is that the environment is not just some nuisance getting in the way of a new Target or housing development. Those swamps and wetlands along the LA coast are there for a reason, to absorb the blow from hurricanes, as are the barrier islands in the Gulf and along the East Coast. I am not for stopping progess and though I know this comes off sounding rather granola but development has to blend in and work in harmony with the surrounding environment, not just deplete it completely.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Hurricanes, floods, fire etc. are natures way of maintaining balance, when humans try to defeat those efforts they typically come back to bite us in a bad way.

Just remember what happened to Yellowstone when humans thought that forests shouldn't burn.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by RIRedinPA

Hurricanes, floods, fire etc. are natures way of maintaining balance, when humans try to defeat those efforts they typically come back to bite us in a bad way.

Yeah, like when folks tried to stop disease by creating things called "vaccines" and "antibiotics." They don't really work, it's just an illusion.

There is no "balance" restored by a tornado or a lightning-caused fire - it's a random occurance. Hurricanes don't restore balance. If anything, hurricanes are evidence of entropy, moving from order to disorder.

I know, I know that fires were "caused" by Forest Service regulations about clearing out Yellowstone, etc. I agree that mankind can cause things to be worse when they happen, and we can prevent forest fires (just ask Smokey). But this idea of restoring the balance has to be taken with a critical eye, lest some nutjobs think that there is some reversion to a "natural" way. It doesn't exist.

[notloc_D]

Originally Posted by finboy

Yeah, like when folks tried to stop disease by creating things called "vaccines" and "antibiotics." They don't really work, it's just an illusion.

There is no "balance" restored by a tornado or a lightning-caused fire - it's a random occurance. Hurricanes don't restore balance. If anything, hurricanes are evidence of entropy, moving from order to disorder.

I know, I know that fires were "caused" by Forest Service regulations about clearing out Yellowstone, etc. I agree that mankind can cause things to be worse when they happen, and we can prevent forest fires (just ask Smokey). But this idea of restoring the balance has to be taken with a critical eye, lest some nutjobs think that there is some reversion to a "natural" way. It doesn't exist.

I don't know about this....I readily admit I am not an environmentalist. But natural occurences, from my understand, tend to benefit land. Fires help to restore nutrients to the land. I am sure hurrucanes, tornados, tsunamis,...everything have a purpose in the whole scheme of things. If that weren't the case, nature wouldn't be more powerful than man.

I could be absolutely wrong...bit thats why I started the thread.

[mojo2]

The bill has passed and is now law, I believe.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hlight=weather

[finboy]

Originally Posted by notloc_D

I don't know about this....I readily admit I am not an environmentalist. But natural occurences, from my understand, tend to benefit land. Fires help to restore nutrients to the land. I am sure hurrucanes, tornados, tsunamis,...everything have a purpose in the whole scheme of things. If that weren't the case, nature wouldn't be more powerful than man.

I could be absolutely wrong...bit thats why I started the thread.

I think you're confusing "having a purpose" with "having some positive effects." I don't think any of those catastrophes (esp. tornados) end up being necessary to the propagation of some species or another.

So a hurricane displaced half a million folks, not to mention the death of wildlife and the destruction of natural habitat, but it helped revitalize the cyprus swamps with new life. Kinda like saying that the bomb was good for Hiroshima.


Can we say that hurricanes benefit pine forests by toppling the weaker trees? Sure. Is it necessary? Probably not.

[notloc_D]

It is necessary if you jhave a life span of a million years, no?

As for people....I think that nature takes care of overpopulation too. With technology, natures efforts are weaker....but quite effective I would say. A hundred years ago, how many do you thnk would have perished in NO? 50 years ago?

I am just asking. As I said, I don't know.