Can we prevent or abate hurricanes?

[Discord7]

The paucity of ocean lightning might be trying to be telling us something about conditions that breed the big storms.

 

[JaredJames]

I believe one of the key factors in hurricane formation is latent heat, so to prevent them you would be looking to deal with that - over potentially many hundreds of square miles. Good luck with that.

There are some natural hazards we have to live with and work to minimise damage. Prevention is simply not an option.

I don't see why a lack of lightning has any major impact on the creation of big storms.

 

[Nik_2213]

IIRC, there have been mega-engineering suggestions for reducing the probability of hurricanes. Spreading an oil-slick on surface to reduce evaporation was the old favourite, AFAIR. The recent Gulf oil-spill serves to remind of the consequences of such a notion. Enough floating ocean thermal power stations, which brought cool 'deep' water to the surface, may have an effect, but you're talking about studding the Equatorial Atlantic with thousands of platforms. Cloud seeding may have been tried, but doesn't seem to work...

 

[Borek]

My idea - speculative as every one - is to "somehow" transfer excess heat from the ocean to the land. From what I understand that's the gradient that fuels hurricanes. Any other approach is just asking for troubles, as it disturbs other equilibria - and it can turn out it produces even worse effects than those we want to prevent.

 

[Discord7]

I believe one of the key factors in hurricane formation is latent heat, so to prevent them you would be looking to deal with that - over potentially many hundreds of square miles. Good luck with that.

I don't see why a lack of lightning has any major impact on the creation of big storms.

You are right on, but latent heat doesn't have to always return as thermal energy. As vapor mingles with the negative ions plentiful in many places, it acquires significant ionization amongst its own molecules. As ionized vapor chills, the molecules come closer together until, when cold enough, they gravitate onto each other to form liquid water, perhaps an orbiting arrangement as the gas molecules fall below escape velocity from each other. (Something like that, but with apologies to purists, it seems close enough for us to get by on.) However, the mutual gravitation between charged water molecules is opposed by electrostatic repulsion to reduce the condensation temperature to a lower value. In liquid form, the charged water molecules have been pushed closer together, thus storing some of that previous heat energy as electrical potential energy.

In a similar fashion, the freezing point of rainwater gets reduced to as low as about minus forty degrees just about when lightning is ready to fire. That is more storage of electrical energy all over again. Much of all that former thermal energy is thrust into the Earth as lightning to depart the scene, never to pester people amidst the storm, essentially cooling the atmosphere from what it would have been.

To combat shortage of lightning, strategic supplementation of the Fair Weather Current; underestimated (I believe) at a measly total of some thousand amps or so, might do wonders.

Am ordered off to the scullery, but will be back with my support of the paucity report.

 

[Evo]

Please all, reasonable speculation is fine, but if you are going to state specific facts, remember that you need to back up comments with suitable sources.

 

[JaredJames]

Latent heat and its effects on thunderstorms (effectively a kids guide): http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/w...eat.rxml?hret=/guides/mtr/hurr/grow/home.rxml

Just covering my backside.

 

[Evo]

Latent heat and its effects on thunderstorms (effectively a kids guide): http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/w...eat.rxml?hret=/guides/mtr/hurr/grow/home.rxml

Just covering my backside.

LOL.

Throwing in interesting background info on some of the tidbits shared is always good.

Example - Rarity of lightning over the ocean.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast05dec_1/

 

[JaredJames]

LOL.

Throwing in interesting background info on some of the tidbits shared is always good.

Had to be done.

I love studying the weather. If it wasn't such a poor job market where I live it's what I'd have loved to do.

 

[DaveC426913]

Hurricanes are one of the most powerful - if not the most powerful - forces of nature on planet Earth; the energy they move around is nearly unimaginable. Many orders of magnitude greater than tornados and even atomic bombs, their effect is on the scale of continents and oceans.

I cannot even begin to imagine what trying to stop or lessen them would do to the Earth's climate on a global scale and on a long-term timeline.

Of all the ways we could accidentally bring Earth's ecological engine to a grinding halt, I think this one is right at the top.

I think y'all should be tossed in the slammer for even thinking about it :grumpy:.

 

[JaredJames]

I think y'all should be tossed in the slammer for even thinking about it :grumpy:.

I'll second that!

 

[Evo]

Hurricanes are one of the most powerful - if not the most powerful - forces of nature on planet Earth; the energy they move around is nearly unimaginable. Many orders of magnitude greater than tornados and even atomic bombs, their effect is on the scale of continents and oceans.

I cannot even begin to imagine what trying to stop or lessen them would do to the Earth's climate on a global scale and on a long-term timeline.

Of all the ways we could accidentally bring Earth's ecological engine to a grinding halt, I think this one is right at the top.

I think y'all should be tossed in the slammer for even thinking about it :grumpy:.

Actually tornadoes are considered more powerful than hurricanes.

Hurricanes can produce more widespread damage though.

Which is stronger, a hurricane or tornado?

The winds from a strong tornado (F4 or F5 - 207 mph or higher) are significantly stronger than the highest category of hurricane (Saffir-Simpson Scale Category 4 or 5 - 131 mph and higher). However, hurricanes tend to cause much more destruction than tornadoes because they cover a much larger area, last longer, and have a variety of destructive forces (the eyewall, storm surge, flooding, and sustained strong winds). Tornadoes, in contrast, tend to be a mile or smaller in diameter, last for minutes and primarily cause damage from their extreme winds.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/faq/faq_tor.php

Hurricanes dissipate quickly once they hit dry land, which is why the most damage is close to the coastline. The thing about hurricanes is that they can skim along the coastline, even moving back out into the ocean to gain more strength and then making landfall again.

 

[Discord7]

How could you measure the paucity of ocean lightning ?
Can you be more precise on it. Thanks in advance.

Here is some lightning mapping. http://geology.com/articles/lightning-map.shtml
You are welcome in retrospect.

 

[Discord7]

My idea - speculative as every one - is to "somehow" transfer excess heat from the ocean to the land. From what I understand that's the gradient that fuels hurricanes. Any other approach is just asking for troubles, as it disturbs other equilibria - and it can turn out it produces even worse effects than those we want to prevent.

Increased lightning would seem to do what you recommended. If we get it hitting more ocean water, the trend of negative lightning should find the consequential electron flow seeking out land in its quest for elevation. This is not to claim dispatch of all of the excess energy. The shift of energy to land might be inevitable either way, but sneaking more of it over spread out along the surface might be a little safer.

 

[JaredJames]

Increased lightning would seem to do what you recommended. If we get it hitting more ocean water, the trend of negative lightning should find the consequential electron flow seeking out land in its quest for elevation. This is not to claim dispatch of all of the excess energy. The shift of energy to land might be inevitable either way, but sneaking more of it over spread out along the surface might be a little safer.

What about the heat given out by the lightning? It heats the surrounding air to many thousands of degrees so how effective would the losses actually be?

 

[Dotini]

What about the heat given out by the lightning? It heats the surrounding air to many thousands of degrees so how effective would the losses actually be?

Mustn't lightning be a net discharge of energy from the clouds to the surface?

So hurricanes might then be mitigated by lightning rockets launched from small islands in the path of the storm?

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[JaredJames]

Mustn't lightning be a net discharge of energy from the clouds to the surface?

So hurricanes might then be mitigated by lightning rockets launched from small islands in the path of the storm?

Lightning rockets are only useful once there is a charge build up capable of generating lightning. They are generally used to guide the course of the lightning so it strikes where they want it to, they don't create it. Usually, the strike will occur either way and you just control where and when.

Not sure which they the charge must go. Can it not go from land to cloud?

 

[DaveC426913]

Actually tornadoes are considered more powerful than hurricanes.

I'm not sure why you mention power out-of-context (local, ground-level destruction). I was pretty specific about the scale I'm talking about. I'm not talking about mere superficial damage to structures, I'm talking about climate change.

While locally, a tornado might have more power than a hurricane, the sum total of energy is what will affect the planet. Hurricanes have continental effects. They release vastly more energy than tornadoes.

Altering tornadoes will save villages; altering hurricanes will alter wind patterns, rainfall and ocean currents.

Hurricanes dissipate quickly once they hit dry land, which is why the most damage is close to the coastline.

The maximum area a tornado affects is on the order of .5km x 20km. The minimum area a hurricane affects is on the order of 500km by about 1000km. That's a factor of a half million.

 

[Borek]

altering hurricanes will alter wind patterns, rainfall and ocean currents over continent-sized regions.

That's why I think my idea is relatively safe. The energy gradient exists, fighting it will be counterproductive. However, the same energy can be discharged either in three days hurricane, or two weeks of rough weather. The latter lacks destructive power, but is equivalent in a mass/energy transport. Depending on a year number of hurricanes changes, so hurricane is not something inevitable - energy/mass transport is, way it happens is not.

Not that I see any practical approach to the problem, just whenever I read about proposed methods they are designed to stop or to not allow energy/mass transport. That's asking for troubles.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's why I think my idea is relatively safe. The energy gradient exists, fighting it will be counterproductive. However, the same energy can be discharged either in three days hurricane, or two weeks of rough weather. The latter lacks destructive power, but is equivalent in a mass/energy transport. Depending on a year number of hurricanes changes, so hurricane is not something inevitable - energy/mass transport is, way it happens is not.

And you don't think this will impact temperatures, rainfall or ocean currents around the world?

Here's just one itty-bitty example: how much deep/cold water turnover in ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream (which affect the climate as far away as Great britain) will occur in two weeks of rough weather as opposed in one giant storm? You don't think a hurricane can affect the temperature of the Gulf Stream any more than two weeks of storms?

You acknowledge that a short, sharp blast will dramatically affect my house much more than a sustained release, but you don't see it affecting air and water "structures" in a similar fashion?

 

[Borek]

You acknowledge that a short, sharp blast will dramatically affect my house much more than a sustained release, but you don't see it affecting air and water "structures" in a similar fashion?

Number of cyclones per year is not constant, just like amount of energy they dissipate (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html). Unless there are strong correlations between these numbers and climate in other parts of the Atlantic Ocean base, it doesn't have to be a problem.

I am not saying you are wrong, more like you don't have to be right.

 

[Evo]

I'm not sure why you mention power out-of-context (local, ground-level destruction). I was pretty specific about the scale I'm talking about. I'm not talking about mere superficial damage to structures, I'm talking about climate change. While locally, a tornado might have more power than a hurricane, the sum total of energy is what will affect the planet. Hurricanes have continental effects. They release vastly more energy than tornadoes.

Ouch, sorry, the way I read it was that you were discussing two different issues, the first was the force of the hurricane being greater than tornadoes and bombs, then about larger effects on the scale of "continents and oceans", which all together wasn't too clear to me about what you were saying.

I did get the part about trying to stop them not a good idea, which I agree with.

This is why it's always a good idea to post sources when you make a statement.

Altering tornadoes will save villages; altering hurricanes will alter wind patterns, rainfall and ocean currents.

Tornadoes are often spawned by intense storm cells, the storms themselves can cover 2-3 states and produce multiple tornadoes. http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/safety/tornadoguide.html Think of tornadoes as a much smaller deadly force within a larger storm. Hurricanes will spawn tornadoes.

The maximum area a tornado affects is on the order of .5km x 20km. The minimum area a hurricane affects is on the order of 500km by about 1000km. That's a factor of a half million.

This article backs up what you've said about hurricanes and their effects, and why trying to stop them is not practical.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/askjack/wfaqhurm.htm

 

[DaveC426913]

Ouch, sorry, the way I read it was that you were discussing two different issues, the first was the force of the hurricane being greater than tornadoes and bombs, then about larger effects on the scale of "continents and oceans", which all together wasn't too clear too me about what you were saying.

Ah. I see. Yes, that was a single complete thought.

 

[DaveC426913]

Number of cyclones per year is not constant, just like amount of energy they dissipate (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/E11.html). Unless there are strong correlations between these numbers and climate in other parts of the Atlantic Ocean base, it doesn't have to be a problem.

We can't make strong correlations. Weather is chaotic.

We don't know that diverting a hurricane here will cause flooding there. But we can be darned sure it's very likely to make changes that we cannot predict.

Considering the forces and areas we're dealing with, making unpredictable changes at a continental scale would be very bad.

 

[Evo]

Ah. I see. Yes, that was a single complete thought.

I need bright signs and graphics to assist me in putting the parts of a single thought together. At least I do nowadays, no sleep...

 

[Dotini]

Considering the forces and areas we're dealing with, making unpredictable changes at a continental scale would be very bad.

Only continental scale changes? Small beer compared to Dr. Edward Teller's genius-level plans for deftly modulating the entire planet between ice age and warming by means of launching various particles into the atmosphere:
http://www.newruskincollege.com/gorbachevbushartificialcloudsinstitutenewruskincollegecom/id7.html

http://www.newruskincollege.com/gorbachevbushartificialcloudsinstitutenewruskincollegecom/id30.html

Respectfully,
Steve

 

[DaveC426913]

Only continental scale changes? Small beer compared to Dr. Edward Teller's genius-level plans for deftly modulating the entire planet between ice age and warming by means of launching various particles into the atmosphere:
http://www.newruskincollege.com/gorbachevbushartificialcloudsinstitutenewruskincollegecom/id7.html

http://www.newruskincollege.com/gorbachevbushartificialcloudsinstitutenewruskincollegecom/id30.html

Respectfully,
Steve

Hm. Yes. Well that is a slightly different case, since he is trying to essentially save our planet's ecosystem from a destruction it would be heading towards if we didn't step in.

Not the same as fixing something that ain't broke.

 

[Evo]

Hm. Yes. Well that is a slightly different case, since he is trying to essentially save our planet's ecosystem from a destruction it would be heading towards if we didn't step in.

Or more likely to destroy the planet's ecosystem interfering in things we don't understand.

Which is why Climate Change is a banned topic.

 

[Discord7]

What about the heat given out by the lightning? It heats the surrounding air to many thousands of degrees so how effective would the losses actually be?

What you say is true: Hurricanes gather power by holding onto a merry-go-round exchange of energy between succeeding stages of thermal, kinetic, and latent heat energies endured in synchronism with daily augmentation from freshly fallen sunshine above and fresh release of heat from the seasonal bounty of ocean heat.

If only some of the hurricane's power needs to be drawn away, electrical energy might be the answer. Some energy will be extracted due to IR losses radiating outward from stricken sites. Electrically charged raindrops landing on the Earth might evade reheating of storm-site localities better than lightning. Lightning will diminish retention of energy by radiation of light, heat and lesser portions of the spectrum, and even by sound radiation to safely distant ears. By its presence during spawning portions of hurricane cultivation, lightning might even more promising.

Were we to discover serious unintended consequences, we could back-peddle our efforts and confiscate the properties of whoever it was who encouraged such mistaken practices.
Were we to prosper from the process, we might release a few from the jail house.

 

[Dotini]

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=167792

http://www.cramster.com/answers-feb-07/physics/earth-cloud-capacitor-questionnbspin-lightning-storms-po_44019.aspx

So the clouds are capacitors? What is the simplest way to discharge them?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[JaredJames]

We don't know that diverting a hurricane here will cause flooding there.

Just to support Dave on this, an example of how far a hurricane's effect can be felt - whenever there is a hurricane in the US, a few weeks later the UK usually receives approximately a fortnight of bad weather, nicknamed getting the "tail end" of the storm.

 

[Discord7]

To ponder feasibility for control is not the same as making the decision to apply the control. Do we blame Einstein for saying E=mc squared when some rascal drops a bad bomb? Contrarily, if systematic ionization of selective atmospheric sites sufficed to meddle with our weather, then our ignorance of such a threat (if it were a grievous threat) would leave us helpless to fend off corresponding mischief makers.

 

[DaveC426913]

To ponder feasibility for control is not the same as making the decision to apply the control. Do we blame Einstein for saying E=mc squared when some rascal drops a bad bomb?

(for the record, the atomic bomb was not my analogy but jeez, Discord is practically making my case for me...):

I'll straighten your analogy:

Einstein formulates E=mc^2 :: we study how hurricanes work. (Science Research - No ethical dilemma.)

The fathers of the atomic bomb ponder the feasibility of making a bomb :: we ponder the feasibility of stopping hurricanes. (Engineering Design - Huge ethical dilemma.)



Yes, absolutely, the fathers of the atomic bomb had huge ethical issues about pondering the feasilbiity of using the science to mess with nature.

As Oppenheimer quoted:
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."



Hey, it's your analogy.

 

[Discord7]

(for the record, the atomic bomb was not my analogy but jeez, Discord is practically making my case for me...):

The fathers of the atomic bomb ponder the feasibility of making a bomb :: we ponder the feasibility of stopping hurricanes. (Engineering Design - Huge ethical dilemma.)

But golly: All I meant was to ponder feasibility for a little attenuation of hurricanes, not to put them right out of business. Looking for feasibility is just identifying do-ability if it is there. After that comes the process of determining whether or not any doable action is naughty or nice. I would fear the potential side affect of plaguing ships at sea with too much lightning. If the deed were feasible but naughty, then our study would have enabled us to watch out for bad guys doing the deed.

I think we just need to keep the big endians and little endians equal enough to keep each other under control. But the slammer!

 

[DaveC426913]

What are big endians and little endians?



(P.S. My slammer comment is hopefully regarded as the hyperbole it was meant as. It is simply meant to point out that there's a serious ethical issue here. In all this feasibility talk, is anyone stopping to think whether we should be doing anything? As if we haven't made a cock-up of the planet's climate enough already.)