Preventing Tornadoes: Myth or Reality?

[Evo]

Water, when subjected to the low pressure of a tornado, turns into water vapor.

So a hypothetical tornado that passes over a pond sucks up water, expending energy. The water goes through a state change and becomes a gas.

Does this cool water have an effect on the tornado?

All right, we're not playing here.

You have three days to find that source.

 

[DaveC426913]

Water, when subjected to the low pressure of a tornado, turns into water vapor.

So a hypothetical tornado that passes over a pond sucks up water, expending energy. The water goes through a state change and becomes a gas.

Does this cool water have an effect on the tornado?

Again (and possibly for the last time), you cannot simply state this because you think it is plausible.

Prove it.

[EDIT Oh. Evo beat me to it.]

 

[Evo]

I have been unable to find a good source (including Evo's links) that says dumping water into a tornado will make it stronger, or that dumping water into it will make it weaker.

While true, tornadoes do form from severe active thunderstorms, I don't know if that is convincing enough to conclude that adding lots of water to one would have an enhancing effect. For example, if the water happened to be cooler (because it is being artificially added, as opposed to being evaporated naturally), it could - at least conceivably - have a diminishing effect.

I'd say the jury is out until someone can quote a good source on it.

I never made any claims about tornadoes gaining strength from water.

 

[DaveC426913]

I never made any claims about tornadoes gaining strength from water.

In refuting artist's claim that dumping water into a tornado would weaken it, you pointed out that "...tornadoes form from severe rain storms and hurricanes...". While you didn't say explicitly that tornadoes get strength from moisture, it seemed to be the implication - the significance of the comment - to this reader (and thus possibly others). So I went to see if I could bolster the notion (after all that is how hurricanes get their power). But I haven't been able to find a reference either way.

 

[Dotini]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/tornado-hits-springfield-massachusetts-river-13737392

Here is a video, taken on cue for you just minutes ago, of a tornado crossing a major river at Springfield, Mass.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

In refuting artist's claim that dumping water into a torando would weaken it, you pointed out that "...tornadoes form from severe rain storms and hurricanes...". While you didn't say explicitly that tornadoes get their strength from moisture, it seemed to be the implication - the significance of the comment - to this reader (and thus possibly others). So I went to see if I could bolster the notion (after all that is how hurricanes get their power). But I haven't been able to find a reference either way.

Just remember, if I don't say something, it's because I didn't say it, for a reason. So please refrain from guessing what I might have said or might have meant. You can always ask "did you mean to say *this* and forget?, and I'll say *no*.

What causes tornadoes?
Thunderstorms develop in warm, moist air in advance of eastward-moving cold fronts

But that doesn't mean that these conditions always create tornadoes. All I asked was for him to back up what he said. He refused.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/safety/tornadoguide.html

Since he's reading the global rules now. Here's the Earth forum rules for artist.

Earth Sciences Posting Policy

Controversial claims must be supported by evidence that comes from a scientific, peer-reviewed journal or a similarly reliable source, i.e., unsubstantiated claims are not allowed.

 

[Evo]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/tornado-hits-springfield-massachusetts-river-13737392

Here is a video, taken on cue for you just minutes ago, of a tornado crossing a major river at Springfield, Mass.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Wow, amazing.

 

[cph]

Might larger cities statistically be more protected because of a heat shield effect? Perhaps the heat of a city is distruptive, in that if more heat (energy) is added to the atmosphere, then perhaps less exothermic water droplet formation.

 

[Ophiolite]

This http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.5466v1.pdf" appears to contradict artists claim. The detailed maths are rather dense, but if I am interpreting it correctly, water would enhance rather than detract from the energy of the tornado.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/incredible-massachusetts-tornado-footage-captures-twin-funnel-clouds/

This is excellent video of the business-end of a Springfield 6/1/11 tornadic vortex just as it attaches itself to the surface. Without this critical leech-like attachment, tornadoes would be only a minor nuisance. Wouldn't learning how to prevent, reverse or destroy this one feature solve our problem?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

Might larger cities statistically be more protected because of a heat shield effect? Perhaps the heat of a city is distruptive, in that if more heat (energy) is added to the atmosphere, then perhaps less exothermic water droplet formation.

I've actually read that more heat causes more tornadoes, but this was in a discussion of AGW, so you will need to do your own research on that.

Here is a reason we do not see many tornadoes in a major downtown area.

Why does it seem like tornadoes avoid downtowns of major cities? Simply, downtowns cover such tiny land areas relative to the entire nation. The chance of any particular tornado hitting a major downtown is quite low--not for any meteorological reason, but simply because downtowns are small targets. Even when tornadoes hit metro areas; their odds of hitting downtown are small out of space considerations alone. For example, downtown Dallas (inside the freeway loop) covers roughly three square miles, Dallas County, about 900 square miles. For a brief tornado in Dallas County, its odds of hitting downtown are only about 1 in 300. Still, downtown tornadoes have happened, including at least four hits on St. Louis alone. The idea of large buildings destroying or preventing a tornado is pure myth. Even the largest skyscrapers pale in size and volume when compared to the total circulation of a big tornado from ground through thunderhead.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/

 

[Evo]

Although this from the two tornado links I posted previously.

Are there electromagnetic or magnetohydrodynamic explanations for the development of tornadoes?

As far as scientists understand, tornadoes are formed and sustained by a purely thermodynamic process. As a result, their research efforts are towards that end. They have spent a lot of time modeling the formation of a tornado and measuring many parameters in and around a tornado when it is forming and going through its life cycle. They have not seen any evidence to support magnetism or electricity playing a role.

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

 

[Dotini]

Although this from the two tornado links I posted previously.

I was unable to locate the statement regarding "tornadoes being formed and sustained by purely thermodynamic processes" in the NOAA FAQ. Perhaps it has been deleted?

Anyway, I thought readers, particularly Chas Chandler, would be intrigued by this:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1723338

Electric Currents Accompanying Tornado Activity

Abstract
Measurements of the magnetic field and Earth current in the vicinity of a tornado show large step-like deflections coincident with the touching down of the funnel. Calculations with a simple current model indicate that a minimum current of several hundred amperes must be postulated to account for the observed deflection in magnetic field. The existence of a steady current of 225 amperes for a period of about 10 minutes provides joule heat at the rate of approximately 10$^{10}$ joules per second, and involves a total charge transfer of 135,000 coulombs. The calculations imply that a tornado is electrically equivalent to several hundred isolated thunderstorm cells active simultaneously.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[ChasChandler]

Do such multiple vortexes feed only a single cyclonic cell, or do they each have their own? Such organization and complexity is really impressive.

Hey Steve,
I have never seen any evidence of there being more than one mesocyclone (the large, rotating updraft) inside a supercell. The mesocyclone typically has a diameter of something like 2 km, which is the diameter of a very large tornado. While there can be tornadoes anywhere in the vicinity (sometimes several km away), to my knowledge the main tornado is always associated with the mesocyclone.

In refuting artist's claim that dumping water into a tornado would weaken it, you pointed out that "...tornadoes form from severe rain storms and hurricanes...". While you didn't say explicitly that tornadoes get strength from moisture, it seemed to be the implication - the significance of the comment - to this reader (and thus possibly others). So I went to see if I could bolster the notion (after all that is how hurricanes get their power). But I haven't been able to find a reference either way.

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.

First the latent heat calculations. Let's assume that the ambient temperature is a sweltering 40 °C, and that the relative humidity is 100%. The lowest pressure drop ever recorded in a tornado was 100 mb below ambient. That would lower the temperature to roughly 10 °C, forcing the condensation of most of the water vapor, and the release of latent heat.

maximum water vapor content at 40 °C = 51.1 g/m³

maximum water vapor content at 10 °C = 9.4 g/m³

condensation = 51.1 − 9.4 = 41.7 g/m³

tornadic inflow (EF1) = 1,000 m³/s

total condensation = 1,000 m³/s × 41.7 g/m³ = 41,700 g/s

latent heat from condensation of water = 2,257 J/g

total latent heat = 41,700 g/s × 2,257 J/g = 94,117,000 J/s

watt = joule / second

power = 94,117,000 W
​

Now the ohmic heating calculations. The magnetic field generated by a tornado was measured at 1.5 × 10⁻⁸ teslas from a distance of 9.6 km away using a magnetometer. From this we can calculate the amps.

amps = teslas × 2 π r / permeability

permeability of air = 4 π × 10⁻⁷ N/A²

amps = (1.5 × 10⁻⁸ × 2 × 3.14 × 9600) / (4 × 3.14 × 10⁻⁷) = 720 A
​

Guessing that the tornado was 300 m tall, and given an electric field of 5 kV/m, we can then calculate the watts.

volts = 300 m × 5,000 V/m = 1,500,000 V

watts = amps × volts = 720 × 1,500,000 = 1,080,000,000 W
​

More conservative estimates of the typical current densities are in the range of 100~250 amps, but even at the resultant 150~375 million watts, that's still a lot more power than the 100 million watts that could be coming from latent heating.

In addition to the ohmic and the latent heating inside the tornado, there is also, of course, the low pressure aloft inside the thunderstorm enhancing the updraft, and there is also frictional heating at the lower boundary.

Only the frictional heating at the ground level could possibly be responsible for the extreme low pressure at the base of the tornado, as it is the only energy source that is concentrated near the ground. Estimates of the (destructive) work done by the tornado on the ground are in the range of 5 million watts for an F1 tornado, to 5 billion watts for an F5. The effect on the air of the thermalized energy is, of course, to increase its buoyancy, accounting for the vigorous updraft at the base of the vortex, which cannot be explained in any other way.

I was unable to locate the statement regarding "tornadoes being formed and sustained by purely thermodynamic processes" in the NOAA FAQ. Perhaps it has been deleted?

Here is the link. The quote is in a pop-up that appears if you hover over the question in the right-hand sidebar, "Are there electromagnetic or magnetohydrodynamic explanations for the development of tornadoes?"

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/tornado/tor_predicting.html"

 

[anonymity]

I think it is possible - you have to find (and kill) correct butterfly in time.

lol @ chaos theory jokes =s

 

[ak666666]

With much more greenery, IR would be reflected back more, ground will heat up less and hot air will rise up less. This could lessen tornado force. No?

 

[DoggerDan]

While weather experts understand what conditions tend to produce tornadoes, I think there is a good bit not understood about exactly when, where, and why they occur. Until we have a better understanding, it would seem that prevention is a little ahead of the game. Beyond that, there are such tremendous amounts of energy involved that one wonders if intervention could ever be practical. For the foreseeable future, increasingly effective early warning systems are probably the best hope.

Some dwellings are far more tornado-resistant than others. If I ever moved to Kansas, I wouldn't life in a traditional two-story house!

 

[atheerzahroon]

I think if we can make a thermodynanic changes to the maximum or minimum pressure regions of tornado we can control it. Is there a pressure diagram of these regions ?

 

[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 don't 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/magazine/phased_array_radar/welcome.html#intro

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6Nrcsu2Rk8&feature=related

 

[propalo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 realize 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]

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]

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]

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, doesn't have to be oxygen/nitrogen as with our atmosphere. Their formation has nothing to do with the basic makeup of the atmosphere.


Dave

 

[DaveC426913]

For example, tornadoes (dust devils) form quite happily on Mars, whose atmosphere contains no oxygen at all.

 

[davenn]

Do some reading up on the formation of thunder storm cells --- most important to understand that! :)

Then carry that reading on to the next stage as to the reasons why some thunder storm cells produce tornadoes and some dont. The conditions required within the stormcell that need to be just right to produce a tornado

on a side note... I also really don't think you grasp the magnitude of what you are suggesting about depleating a "gas" from a given sized area. How do you think you could deplete the gas of say 10 cubic kilometres ( the avg sized storm cell) without all the surrounding "gas" in the area rushing into fill the void... that in itseld if going to produce very strong winds into that void

Dave

 

[davenn]

For example, tornadoes (dust devils) form quite happily on Mars, whose atmosphere contains no oxygen at all.

nice example ... dave :)


D

 

[Hobin]

I've read through this thread, and I wonder if some people might be going about this the wrong way. As some have pointed out, the amount of energy involved is huge; direct intervention will probably not be feasible for at least quite some time. However, there are other ways to minimize damage caused by tornadoes. The most obvious ones have already been mentioned: better warning systems, and making infrastructure more 'tornado-resistant'.

Something else I've been thinking about is this: how about redirecting the tornado to a less populated area? (Preferably, a completely unpopulated area.) I suspect this would be much easier than trying to weaken a tornado directly, for the same reason deflecting a flying object is easier than stopping it (although a tornado is admittedly much more complex). If the local weather (in the path of the tornado) significantly affects it's direction and force, trying to affect the tornado indirectly seems conceivable.

Unfortunately, most of what I said is only blabbering because, as has also been said, we don't know that much about how tornadoes work. And let's not forget that redirecting a tornado to less populated areas doesn't exactly make everyone happy and those unhappy people would likely want compensation, which makes this more expensive.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

I've read through this thread, and I wonder if some people might be going about this the wrong way. As some have pointed out, the amount of energy involved is huge; direct intervention will probably not be feasible for at least quite some time. However, there are other ways to minimize damage caused by tornadoes. The most obvious ones have already been mentioned: better warning systems, and making infrastructure more 'tornado-resistant'.

Makes sense so far.

Something else I've been thinking about is this: how about redirecting the tornado to a less populated area? (Preferably, a completely unpopulated area.) I suspect this would be much easier than trying to weaken a tornado directly, for the same reason deflecting a flying object is easier than stopping it (although a tornado is admittedly much more complex). If the local weather (in the path of the tornado) significantly affects it's direction and force, trying to affect the tornado indirectly seems conceivable.

Too bad you couldn't stay on the rails. How in the world do you redirect a tornado? Do you put on your orange and yellow uniform and point to the right (or left you're in the UK where these things are pretty rare.)?

Unfortunately, most of what I said is only blabbering because, as has also been said, we don't know that much about how tornadoes work. And let's not forget that redirecting a 0tornado to less populated areas doesn't exactly make everyone happy and those unhappy people would likely want compensation, which makes this more expensive.

Bold mine.

Yes indeed. Let us not forget.

 

[Hobin]

Too bad you couldn't stay on the rails. How in the world do you redirect a tornado? Do you put on your orange and yellow uniform and point to the right (or left you're in the UK where these things are pretty rare.)?

I don't know how to do such a thing specifically, that was sort of the point. I think it might be easier to try to change the direction/force of a tornado by modifying some variables in its path, instead of directly trying to affect the tornado. Obviously, I haven't tried any of this out on any tornadoes nearby, nor do I even know whether we even have the equipment to try any of this right now (I think not).

 

[davenn]

I don't know how to do such a thing specifically, that was sort of the point. I think it might be easier to try to change the direction/force of a tornado by modifying some variables in its path, instead of directly trying to affect the tornado. Obviously, I haven't tried any of this out on any tornadoes nearby, nor do I even know whether we even have the equipment to try any of this right now (I think not).

Again as I commented to the other poster...

read up on how thunderstorm cells are formed and what conditions are required within a storm cell to allow it to produce a tornado. Once you have some of those basic understandings you will realize the massive energy releases are involved in a large storm cell and how futile our attempts would be to try and dissapate the storm without doing severe damage in the process.
Altho the total ins and outs of tornado formation may not be completely understood, they are understood well enough to predict which storm cells are likely to produce a tornado. That can be and is done relatively successfully. Us storm chasers do it every spring and summer in the mid-west USA and other countries.

It really still boils down to building structures that can either withstand the tornado onslaught ( probably easier to build structures to withstand big earthquakes!) or try to improve warning times for people to get to shelters for their protection.
But unfortunately good warning times for tornadoes are the same as for earthquakes ...
ie. when the tornado/quake is some distance from an urban area, early warning can be good. But if the tornado forms within a few km's or over (likewise with a quake right under) an urban area there can be no early warning.cheers
Dave

 

[Evo]

What I don't understand is why buildings in areas prone to tornadoes are not required to have underground shelters?

I live in Kansas, and moved from a house with a basement with a concrete sheltered space only a few feet wide that would provide the most safety, to an apartment that doesn't even have a basement. We have an excellent tornado warning system, but most of the buildings have no basement shelter. What good does a tornado siren do if I have no shelter to go to? Why isn't there a law that makes at least one shelter per apartment complex mandatory? If a tornado hit here, I'd be toast. The same for most small businesses. There is no place to go.

 

[chemisttree]

I guess they figure you can ride it out in your clothes dryer. I've never heard of anyone that was killed that sought out the clothes dryer refuge.