Can we prevent tornadoes?

atheerzahroon

Here are some rough calculations that I did, using numbers from the source that Steve quoted, as well as other sources. Tornadoes do seem to get a respectable amount of energy from the release of latent heat from the condensation of water vapor, while ohmic heating from the electric current inside the tornado appears to make a far more substantial contribution.




This is a very good calculations. But dont you think that making such big magnetic field is hard to reach and you need to direct your magnetic effects to the tornado. How can you do the by using a wide spread magnetic field.

atheerzahroon

how is that

DoggerDan

It appears you're saying the best counter against a tornado is to cool it, or at least the air feeding it. Since it's usually heavily laden with moisture, an aerosol of water wouldn't be very effective.

Obviously, the application of heat would simply strength it, right? If so, detonating a nuke would only add energy to the system, although it may can enough disruption to stop one.

I doubt that, though.

The electric perspective might have merit, but again, I doubt we could afford to generate any sort of counter-current of that magnitude. Tornadoes much generate/use massive amounts of energy. What would it take? The output of the entire Eastern Seaboard?

joema

It appears progress in radar and computers might effectively accomplish the same goal as tornado prevention, at least to some degree. If you could predict with extreme accuracy and lead time when a tornado happened, this would reduce the need to prevent it (which might not be possible, anyway).

A big limitation to current tornado warnings is the slow 5 minute update cycle on the WSR-88D doppler system. This limits warning time, plus limits data needed for vortex signature analysis.

Currently tornado warnings are issued only on visual sightings or radar-indicated features combined with human analysis. There's a fairly high false detection rate. You normally want more than a single radar frame before calling a warning, which would take 10 minutes for two frames. A rapidly developing storm can slip between such slow updates.

Phase array radar (like used on Navy Aegis ships) could increase the update rate to 60 sec for a total volume coverage pattern, maybe faster. In weather reflection tests, the Navy Aegis SPY-1 radar already exceeds the temporal and angular resolution of the NexRad WSR-88D, despite the latter using 750,000 watts output. See graphic.

The National Weather Service has a single phased array weather radar test installation, called MPAR (Multi-mission Phased Array Radar). The optimum scan pattern is still being researched. Also, because the beam is electronically (not mechanically) steered, a severe storm region could be selectively painted every few seconds without sacrificing less-frequent 360 deg. coverage. This could increase the update rate for a given storm cell by a factor of 50 over the current WSR-88D system.

If MPAR is ever funded and deployed nationwide, the additional data from the high update rate could be combined with new computer models to issue high-confidence warnings much further in advance. At least that's the theory. The goal is "warn on forecast", vs the current "warn when tornado is detected".

If that happens and the lead time, accuracy and confidence level of tornado warnings greatly improve, people can just get out of the way.

http://celebrating200years.noaa.gov/...ome.html#intro

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/research/radar/mpar.php

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/research/forewarn/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Nrc...eature=related

Attached Thumbnails

 

propalo

I also thought about soap-like or foam-like substance that can help to damp tornado/storm/hurricane and moreover to harness theirs energy (a part of). It must appear when a wind achieves a certain speed, and disappear when a wind weaken. I want also for mentioned substance to be built of existed resources without artificial matters and other expensive components. Ideal result: to get desired effect without expenses and without intervention in nature.

DaveC426913

Not split hairs but this is contradictory by definition. The desired effect is to intervene in nature.

propalo

You are right.
Use the contradiction as a tool in the solution process

ChasChandler

What "new models" are under consideration?

Recent research demonstrated that even with fine-grain in situ data (such as numerous anemometers under the storms, and dual Doppler radars less than 15 km away), and given plenty of time to post-process the data, supercells that produce tornadoes are difficult to distinguish from those that do not, given the existing understanding of the dynamics of such storms.

Markowski, P., Majcen, M., Richardson, Y., Marquis, J., and Wurman, J., 2011: Characteristics of the Wind Field in a Trio of Nontornadic Low-Level Mesocyclones Observed by the Doppler On Wheels Radars. E-Journal of Severe Storms Meteorology, North America

If bi-directional in situ radars don't yield more accurate predictions in after-the-fact analyses by the leading experts in tornado science, why would we expect single-station MPAR data from a greater distance away to help in operational (i.e., real time) forecasting by staff meteorologists? Without advances in tornado theory, MPAR is just going to turn into a huge embarrassment for the meteorological community, because they will have spent a whole lot of money and the quality of the warnings still will not have improved.

Just getting out of the way is not terribly realistic in major population centers. Even when rural areas are evacuated due to approaching hurricanes, it takes hours to get everybody out, due to traffic jams. The value of higher-quality warnings is that more people will find better shelter nearby, and that will save lives.

As concerns tornado prevention, I agree that it's a long shot, but only a more accurate model will tell us whether or not it's possible, or if it is, whether or not it's feasible. The bottom line is that both prediction and (possible) prevention beg the same question: what causes destructive vorticity at the ground level? Existing science cannot answer that question, and progress with existing strategies is past the point of diminishing returns. It's time to try something new. See this for what appears to be a far more realistic model of mesocyclones and tornadoes:

http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php

klimatos

I think "a risk" is serious understatement. A sonic boom is a very puny thing compared to the kinetic energies of a tornado. I suspect that you would have many more jets flying into that tornado than flying out of it.

ChasChandler

Rumor has it that Navy pilots stationed at Key West used to fly through waterspouts just for the kick of it. Supposedly they could come out with a 90° course change if they hit it just right. Navy brass frowned on the practice, as the extreme G's put the pilot and plane at great risk. I don't know if they ever lost a plane this way, but I think that they don't do this anymore.

Regardless, a sonic boom isn't going to change much. A sound wave pushes, and then it pulls. When all is said and done, nothing has changed, except for a slight increase in temperature.

DaveC426913

Agreed. You can't just hand wave away the shear magnitude of energy stored in a tornado.

leemadison11

In a general lay man terms what i know about tornadoes is that it occurs due to a sudden difference in the temperature leading to formation of vortex which soon engulfs the area around it. I don't think it is possible to stop tornado, but i think it is possible to prevent it.

olivermsun

An only halfway tongue-in-cheek response: It would probably be more efficient to improve the social net and urban planning so we have less people living in trailer parks.

SW VandeCarr

The answer to the simple question posed in the OP is 'no'. Can we prevent runaway threads?

Elaine Doyle

Rather then waiting for the tornado to form and then trying to stop it, why not research a way to prevent the circumstances that may produce a tornado?

SW VandeCarr

And what would that be? Tornadoes form mostly in North America because of its geography. The major mountain ranges run north to south and a vast plain runs from the Arctic Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. This provides excellent conditions for clashing humid warm air and dry cold air masses. Without going into the physics, these are prime conditions for violent weather, including thunderstorms and tornadoes. To prevent tornadoes you would need to change the geography or change the physics. This thread is full of very speculative posts which would appear to violate the rules of these forums. As I said in my previous post, the answer to the OP's question is no. I posted a source, earlier in this thread, from the US Weather Service which said as much. Ideas regarding seeding of thunderstorms with various chemicals to prevent tornado formation have been discussed for years and for various reasons have been discarded as impractical or possibly dangerous. The latest outbreak produced over 50 tornadoes, but there's no known way to even identify exactly when or where they might form. Research is continuing however. These studies are aimed mostly at being able to make more precise predictions and give more specific warnings.

SmoothJazzMan

Has anyone thought about this? The Army has a "oxygen depleting" weapon? What about Airforce using global-positioning, via lasers fired from law enforcement at the tornado, dropping a "oxygen depleting" devise(upper atmosphoere). It eliminates the tornados abiltity to develop energy, thereby no tornado. Upper atmosphere, so that there is no harm to people. What do you think?