- #31
ChasChandler
- 13
- 0
Well put, Steve.
It's ironic that we think that certain things are acts of God, about which we can do nothing, while we spend the rest of our time running around taking care of the things that we know we can change. And yet everything we do was once considered impossible. It is our nature as caring human beings to seek to better understand the world in which we live, and to do what we can. It is not our nature to think that everything is random, and that we are powerless. So we should consider the possibility that tornadoes can be prevented. By anybody's (sane) standards, it's a long shot, but it's still at least worth considering. After all, if we dismissed every possibility because it sounded incredible, a lot of great things in this world never would have come into existence.
jceb38111 is on the right track. No need to worry about forcing tornadoes into extinction... :) Of the 1,000 tornadoes that occur every year in the U.S., only 10 on average hit populated areas. So if a tornado goes out and shucks $50,000 of corn in the middle of nowhere, who cares? But if a tornado is headed for a major population center, you take action (if that's possible).
1] The extents of the defensive perimeter and the amount of lead time are two different issues. Advances in tornado theory and in radar technology might result in lead times as long as 45 minutes, including the ability to estimate the strength of the tornado that will form. More accurate warnings, further in advance, will save lives just because people will have more time to take cover. It will also give tornado fighters more time to get into position. So a better understanding of these storms is central to any life-saving strategy. As the storm approaches the city, if it has implemented tornado prevention (if that's possible), when the storm gets within range of the mitigation strategy (whatever that might be), you try to make the tornado go away. The longer the lead time, the more time you have to get the mitigation strategy set up. So you might have 45 minutes of lead time, but you might only engage the storm when it is 10 minutes outside of town.
2] If this was a reasonable argument, why have hospitals, if you can't afford to build one in every small town in the country? Why have police and fire departments, if they can't get to everybody in the same amount of time? I grew up in the country, and I'm well aware of the number of things that city dwellers take for granted that are simply out of reach way out in the country, but we never thought that we were being slighted. It's simple economics. Out in the country, you have to fend for yourself, and that's the price you pay for peace and quiet. :) Nobody wants to sacrifice the few to save the many, but that doesn't mean that we should sacrifice the many so the few don't feel left out -- that's ridiculous. Besides, as concerns tornadoes, people in the country have some advantages. There is more chance that they can see them coming, and if one looks like it's going to be a direct hit, they can jump in the trucks and get away, with open road in all 4 directions. In the city, try to evacuate and you find traffic jams in all 4 directions. So you protect the cities. With the money you save, build new houses for the country folks who got hit. Everybody wins. :)
3] That's the interesting question, and the quick answer is that nobody knows, but my research has led me to the conclusion that one of the necessary conditions for a tornado to form is a large electric charge in the tornadic inflow. If this could be discharged, the vortex would lift up, and that's when the damage on the ground would stop. Discharging the potentials could be done with lightning rockets. It's a long shot, but still worth considering. See http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php" for more info.
Aside from being impractical to implement a system like this on a large enough scale to be effective, it might actually make the supercell stronger. Supercells feed on warm, moist air, where the thermal energy is stored partly in the face-value temperature of the air, and partly in the amount of water vapor (which releases "latent heat" when it condenses). So you spray a fine mist into the air, and what happens? It evaporates, which cools the air (the inverse of the condensation process). That much is correct. So that prevents the supercell? No. It creates cool, moist air that settles down to the ground, where it gets heated by high surface temperatures. So you'd actually be increasing the amount of potential energy, by guaranteeing that there is high-humidity air at the surface to absorb heat that can be released inside the supercell. And if the humidity is already high, as is normally the case when supercells form, it wouldn't do anything at all, because mist isn't going to evaporate if the relative humidity is already high.
I applaud the sentiment though. :)
It's ironic that we think that certain things are acts of God, about which we can do nothing, while we spend the rest of our time running around taking care of the things that we know we can change. And yet everything we do was once considered impossible. It is our nature as caring human beings to seek to better understand the world in which we live, and to do what we can. It is not our nature to think that everything is random, and that we are powerless. So we should consider the possibility that tornadoes can be prevented. By anybody's (sane) standards, it's a long shot, but it's still at least worth considering. After all, if we dismissed every possibility because it sounded incredible, a lot of great things in this world never would have come into existence.
jceb38111 is on the right track. No need to worry about forcing tornadoes into extinction... :) Of the 1,000 tornadoes that occur every year in the U.S., only 10 on average hit populated areas. So if a tornado goes out and shucks $50,000 of corn in the middle of nowhere, who cares? But if a tornado is headed for a major population center, you take action (if that's possible).
DaveC426913 said:
1] The extents of the defensive perimeter and the amount of lead time are two different issues. Advances in tornado theory and in radar technology might result in lead times as long as 45 minutes, including the ability to estimate the strength of the tornado that will form. More accurate warnings, further in advance, will save lives just because people will have more time to take cover. It will also give tornado fighters more time to get into position. So a better understanding of these storms is central to any life-saving strategy. As the storm approaches the city, if it has implemented tornado prevention (if that's possible), when the storm gets within range of the mitigation strategy (whatever that might be), you try to make the tornado go away. The longer the lead time, the more time you have to get the mitigation strategy set up. So you might have 45 minutes of lead time, but you might only engage the storm when it is 10 minutes outside of town.
2] If this was a reasonable argument, why have hospitals, if you can't afford to build one in every small town in the country? Why have police and fire departments, if they can't get to everybody in the same amount of time? I grew up in the country, and I'm well aware of the number of things that city dwellers take for granted that are simply out of reach way out in the country, but we never thought that we were being slighted. It's simple economics. Out in the country, you have to fend for yourself, and that's the price you pay for peace and quiet. :) Nobody wants to sacrifice the few to save the many, but that doesn't mean that we should sacrifice the many so the few don't feel left out -- that's ridiculous. Besides, as concerns tornadoes, people in the country have some advantages. There is more chance that they can see them coming, and if one looks like it's going to be a direct hit, they can jump in the trucks and get away, with open road in all 4 directions. In the city, try to evacuate and you find traffic jams in all 4 directions. So you protect the cities. With the money you save, build new houses for the country folks who got hit. Everybody wins. :)
3] That's the interesting question, and the quick answer is that nobody knows, but my research has led me to the conclusion that one of the necessary conditions for a tornado to form is a large electric charge in the tornadic inflow. If this could be discharged, the vortex would lift up, and that's when the damage on the ground would stop. Discharging the potentials could be done with lightning rockets. It's a long shot, but still worth considering. See http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php" for more info.
Aside from being impractical to implement a system like this on a large enough scale to be effective, it might actually make the supercell stronger. Supercells feed on warm, moist air, where the thermal energy is stored partly in the face-value temperature of the air, and partly in the amount of water vapor (which releases "latent heat" when it condenses). So you spray a fine mist into the air, and what happens? It evaporates, which cools the air (the inverse of the condensation process). That much is correct. So that prevents the supercell? No. It creates cool, moist air that settles down to the ground, where it gets heated by high surface temperatures. So you'd actually be increasing the amount of potential energy, by guaranteeing that there is high-humidity air at the surface to absorb heat that can be released inside the supercell. And if the humidity is already high, as is normally the case when supercells form, it wouldn't do anything at all, because mist isn't going to evaporate if the relative humidity is already high.
I applaud the sentiment though. :)
Last edited by a moderator:
