stop hurricanes before they hit!

Discussion in 'Community' started by Err, Aug 31, 2005.

  1. Err macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    #1
    This is just a silly idea from someone who knows little about weather, but I sat here and watched the TV a full day before hurricane katrina hit new orleans and wondered what would have stoped it, what effect do you think setting off a nuclear device in its eye well it was still far far offshore would have? Maybe we could develop some "last resort" type measure like that for when we see a CAT5 hurricane is going to hit the US in a day, i mean the damage is already estimated at 40 billion, not to mention what it has done to gas prices. would setting off a nuke or 2 in the eye be worth it? I keep using nukes as an example, simply because I know little about high power weapons/devices, maybe there is somtihng that would work better, anyways just an idea from my little brain... :rolleyes:
     
  2. clayj macrumors 604

    clayj

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2005
    Location:
    visiting from downstream
    #2
    I don't think nukes would be a good idea, for a couple of reasons I can think of off the top of my head:

    1. Nuclear fallout and radioactivity = bad. You'd irradiate a hell of a lot of water by setting off a nuke inside a hurricane.

    2. Hurricanes feed off warmth. Nukes generate LOTS of warmth. You might just make the hurricane stronger.

    If you want to kill a hurricane, you need to make the sea water below the hurricane COLDER.
     
  3. quackattack macrumors 6502a

    quackattack

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2004
    Location:
    Boise, ID
    #3
    In just looking at the massive force of nature that Katrina was, I seriously doubt there is any amount of technology or expolsives that would have any effect on it.

    Nukes pale in comparison to the amount of power hurricanes can unleash.
     
  4. ChrisBrightwell macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #4
    I read an article once about some research a Ph. D. candidate was doing in this sort of field. His idea was to drop a pressurizer in the eye to raise the pressure and force it to fall apart. Not sure how that went.

    I don't think we could cool ~1,000 square miles fast enough to force the hurricane to fall apart. It would have to be some direct hit on the eye.

    If I find that pressurization article, I'll post it.
     
  5. Err thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2005
    #5
    radioactive water is bad... but 40billion in damage and all the dead people and a city maybe lost forever.... maybe not a bad trade off. but then again nukes may infact do nothing or even make it stronger... nukes were just my example, someone could choose a far better one im sure.

    just trying to ask the question, is there a possible way to break up a hurricane? even if its bad for the eco system, a last resort against CAT 5's headed at major citys??
     
  6. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #6
    It's all the US's fault for backing out of the Kyoto Pact ... according to RFK Jr. :rolleyes:

    Don't know if using a nuclear laser to change a critical portion of the hurricane would help or hurt.

    Of course popping off one or two Star Wars lasers would probably succeed in delivering a massive EMP pulse that crashes computers in that section of the hemisphere.

    Of course a nuke inside a hurricane would probably snuff it out with the pressure wave.
     
  7. homerjward macrumors 68030

    homerjward

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Location:
    fig tree
    #7
    see, what you need to do is get all the sharks in the gulf, and put frickin' laser beams on their frickin' heads. then they can all destroy the hurricane from underneath! *evil laugh*
     
  8. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #8
    Ran across a story today saying that the hurricane was a 4 instead of a 5 because of a fortuitous blast of dry air coming from the north. That dry air apparently nosed the hurricane off course enough to keep New Orleans from getting hit harder, and it lowered the wind speeds enough to change it from a Category 5 to a Category 4 before it hit land.

    So maybe a giant hair dryer in maybe Ohio?
     
  9. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #9
    RFKs point, I believe, was that global warming is going to result in even more destructive weather patterns. The Kyoto treaty was in reaction to and meant to prevent further global warming. Kyoto could not possibly affect what has already been done, as far as global warming goes, it was just a measure that was to do something about controlling further warming.

    If warming leads to events like this, further warming could lead to even worse Hurricanes. So, supporting the Kyoto treaty was not going to prevent what is happening right now, just try to slow what could lead to an increasing problem.

    Now, if finding solutions to major problems that are to come is a problem for you, I am baffled.

    Obviously you don't put much stock in the idea that global warming is going to cause any problems. Hopefully you are right, but RFK has based his predictions upon well researched science, and really only seems to be saying that is we continue to do nothing, events like this will become more prevalent and even more damaging.

    How much can you dislike a guy for doing what he believes will prevent an increase in destructive weather patterns, really.
     
  10. Daveway macrumors 68040

    Daveway

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Location:
    New Orleans / Lafayette, La
    #10
    I think many of these ideas have already been proven not to be affective. I saw in documentary that the use of nukes and "water absorbing particles" have little effect.

    It's hard for us to imagine the huge size of a hurricane. Its beyond human ability to do any such thing to hinder a storm.
     
  11. Backtothemac macrumors 601

    Backtothemac

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2002
    Location:
    San Destin Florida
    #11
    There have been plenty of attempts to do things to help kill a hurricane. Including dropping salt into the storm. Did not work. They disperce energy of mother nature naturally.

    i think the better idea would be to not build cities where they hit. But, people have to have paradise. How about just letting living be paradise.
     
  12. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #12
    Because he nixed a wind turbine project because it would ruin the view from his house.

    Edit: A lot of people are "for" alternative energy projects, but they don't like the eyesores in their neighborhood -- thinking that they will depress their home values.
     
  13. mymemory macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #13
    I am more concer why Bush didn't prepare the national guard until now. Knowing what a cathegory 1 did to FL days before I would have hundreds of troops ready to atke over the city by next day in New Orleans.

    What a miserable president.
     
  14. Nuc macrumors 6502a

    Nuc

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2003
    Location:
    TN
    #14
    Also remember

    Also remember that a nuke also has an EMP as well after it is detonated. Depending how far offshore it is detonated would minimize this effect though. I would think that a nuke would vaporize most of the moisture, possibly reducing the turbulence of a hurricane. Who knows maybe even cause steam explosions. Not to sure about whether it would stop a hurricane unless several where strategically placed. I'm no meteorologist though.

    Nuc
     
  15. dmw007 macrumors G4

    dmw007

    Joined:
    May 26, 2005
    Location:
    Working for MI-6
    #15
    Hey, that is a good idea. :D ;)

    Although, I shudder to think of what the electricity bill for such a behemoth would run....... :eek: ;)
     
  16. xsedrinam macrumors 601

    xsedrinam

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2004
    #16
    What I dislike is WHAT he said, WHEN he said it: "Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind." Mounting some political agenda over the backs of a totally devastated region and people while they are still stunned is just as insensitive as Fox Network trying all day to fault relief agencies. Only the pharisaic, smug and self righteous HAVE TO find out "who sinned, here?" The platform and position may have merit, but there's a proper time and place for it to be said. I just think it was very ill-timed.
     
  17. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #17
    Giant artificial carbon sinks ... something to replace all the coral we are killing off.

    >xsedrinam

    Much better than I could have said it ... don't like his timing or his actions in the past on basically the same subject.
     
  18. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #18
    And what more poignant time could he have presented a reason to act now in order to prevent more disasters like what is happening in New Orleans?

    Tell me? when is the right time to start calling for action that would further prevent events like this one? How many more disasters natural/global warming events should people suffer or die from?

    The fact is, is RFK turns out to be undeniably right, the patterns have been set in motion for more of these events to happen before human activity can be adjusted in such a way as to restore to normal balance and hopefully only go back to having historically normal levels of natural disasters.

    Act now, or act later, which suits you. It took time to start warming the atmosphere, it will take major change and time so offset what has already been set in motion. When is the correct time to realize that change is needed? Why is this not the best time to point out a need for change, when the reasons for that change start to come to fruition? Events like these, in RFKs opinion are the entire basis when it comes to a need for change. RFK did not start advocating change with this event, but it does underscore his the point he has been making and only serves to make it more relevant.

    Why not make the negative impact of what he has been warning of a catalyst for positive change? Are you saying that doing what you can to act in ways that will prevent occurrences like this is a bad thing? If this is an example of what is to come, then right now is the right time to react to it. Isn't it?
     
  19. MrSugar macrumors 6502a

    MrSugar

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2003
    #19
    When making claims like this it is beneficial to cite a solid source on the matter. Do you have anything to show?
     
  20. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #20
    Why?

    Definitely not too find that RFK supports alternative energy -- as long as they do NOT build it anywhere near the Kennedy Compound near Cape Cod, and spoil his views and yachting pleasure.
     
  21. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #21
    Link please, I find that hard to believe. I find windfarms amazing things to observe myself. Either way, I fail to see how that applies to RFK using a good example of what is to come to act in ways to prevent more of this from happening. I am sure that if the people of New Orleans knew before that the scale of this disaster was the result of human interaction with the global environment, they would have supported change also. How bad could they feel about someone doing what he believes will prevent incidences that are as bad as this one in future, and RFK has a wealth of scientific evidence he bases his claims upon.
     
  22. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #22
    Are you kidding me? Is this your definitive evidence?
     
  23. Sun Baked macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #24
    I said RFK was against it, the section you highlighted is Sen. Edward Kennedy.
     
  24. Xtremehkr macrumors 68000

    Xtremehkr

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #25
    I would still like more information concerning why he made the decision he made. Maybe he felt that there was a more suitable location. Either way, it has little to do with what he is saying about the effects of global warming, in this example. The example you presented by the way.

    It really is besides the point, if public momentum were to grow in support of using alternate forms of energy, eminent domain would undoubtedly play a role.

    The main point concerns whether or not this is a result of preventable human behavior or not. There is a lot of evidence that suggests that this is a result of human activity that could be alleviated by adjusting how we create and use energy. Once that becomes an issue (for the majority of people), RFKs concerns about real estate will be of little concern. In the meantime, he deserves credit for doing something about tragic result of our own actions. Whether or not it comes back to bite him in the ass is of little concern to me, I am sure he will be fine. If events that effect hundreds of thousands of people (and maybe many times more in the future) are what are at stake, shouldn't that take precedent.
     

Share This Page