Can we prevent tornadoes?


by SpaceGuy50
Tags: prevent, tornadoes
propalo
propalo is offline
#73
Sep23-11, 01:50 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by shadrach View Post
But that is getting ahead of things. Could the properties of the water molecules in a supercell be changed enough by an aerosolized soap-like substance to prevent (or lessen) a tornado?

Ben Schainker
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
DaveC426913 is offline
#74
Sep23-11, 08:10 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by propalo View Post
to get desired effect ... without intervention in nature.
Not split hairs but this is contradictory by definition. The desired effect is to intervene in nature.
propalo
propalo is offline
#75
Nov20-11, 06:13 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by DaveC426913 View Post
Not split hairs but this is contradictory by definition. The desired effect is to intervene in nature.
You are right.
Use the contradiction as a tool in the solution process
ChasChandler
ChasChandler is offline
#76
Nov20-11, 04:03 PM
P: 13
Quote Quote by joema View Post
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.
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.

Quote Quote by joema View Post
If the lead time, accuracy and confidence level of tornado warnings greatly improve, people can just get out of the way.
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
klimatos is offline
#77
Nov20-11, 09:04 PM
P: 403
Quote Quote by Astronuc View Post
I've wondered if it would be feasible to fly 2 or more jets (capable of supersonic speed) into the critical region of a tornado and use the shock wave(s) to disrupt the vortex (i.e., the jets would 'break' the sound barrier in the vortex generating region). But there is perhaps a risk to the jets from debris and strong fluid dynamics.
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
ChasChandler is offline
#78
Nov20-11, 09:22 PM
P: 13
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
DaveC426913 is offline
#79
Nov20-11, 10:20 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by ChasChandler View Post

Regardless, a sonic boom isn't going to change much.
Agreed. You can't just hand wave away the shear magnitude of energy stored in a tornado.
leemadison11
leemadison11 is offline
#80
Nov21-11, 06:04 AM
P: 4
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
olivermsun is offline
#81
Dec16-11, 02:55 PM
P: 498
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
SW VandeCarr is offline
#82
Dec16-11, 11:03 PM
P: 2,490
The answer to the simple question posed in the OP is 'no'. Can we prevent runaway threads?
Elaine Doyle
Elaine Doyle is offline
#83
Mar5-12, 05:29 AM
P: 1
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
SW VandeCarr is offline
#84
Mar5-12, 11:42 PM
P: 2,490
Quote Quote by Elaine Doyle View Post
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?
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
SmoothJazzMan is offline
#85
Mar14-12, 06:40 PM
P: 2
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?
davenn
davenn is offline
#86
Mar14-12, 07:00 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
davenn's Avatar
P: 2,241
Quote Quote by SmoothJazzMan View Post
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?
so many weird things in that post...
least of which is the upper atmosphere thing.
dont really think tornadoes need oxygen to flourish

Tornadoes form in the LOWER atmosphere usually within the first 1000 metres give or take a bit
If you have ever seen tornadoes form you would realise that

The only way to stop a tornado from forming would be to stop the storm cell from forming.
Considering the energy involved in a major storm cell it would require the energy release of a respectable nuke/or equilivelent to disperse it.
Unfortunately that is going to do just as much if not more human, property and enviromental damage as what the storm/tornado would do anyway

Dave
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#87
Mar14-12, 07:02 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
Quote Quote by SmoothJazzMan View Post
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?
Among the host of reasons it's flawed, is a simple one. Depleting oxygen from a tornado would have no effect on it. Not sure why you think it would.
SmoothJazzMan
SmoothJazzMan is offline
#88
Mar14-12, 07:14 PM
P: 2
Tornados are hot and cold air! Air is oxygen! If we eliminate its ability to create this energy, there is no tornado. The key is to sto it from generating more of it early!
davenn
davenn is offline
#89
Mar14-12, 07:29 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
davenn's Avatar
P: 2,241
Quote Quote by SmoothJazzMan View Post
Tornados are hot and cold air! Air is oxygen! If we eliminate its ability to create this energy, there is no tornado. The key is to sto it from generating more of it early!
you mis-understand

tornadoes will form in any atmosphere, doesnt have to be oxygen/nitrogen as with our atmosphere. Their formation has nothing to do with the basic makeup of the atmosphere.


Dave
DaveC426913
DaveC426913 is offline
#90
Mar14-12, 07:35 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,325
For example, tornadoes (dust devils) form quite happily on Mars, whose atmosphere contains no oxygen at all.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
The physics of tornadoes and interior pressure General Physics 1
WHat causes tornadoes and hurricanes. Earth 1
New Theory on why tornadoes occur. Classical Physics 2
connection between hurricanes and tornadoes General Physics 6