Severe winds, tornadoes and hurricanes

[greggAJ]

Hey, I'd like to know if there is a prize for explaining
how severe winds, tornadoes and hurricanes work,
if different from common acceptance?
And
how to prevent or reduce the severity of
severe winds, tornadoes and hurricanes?

Like math, aviation and Nobel prizes

 

[berkeman]

Hey, I'd like to know if there is a prize for explaining
how severe winds, tornadoes and hurricanes work,
if different from common acceptance?
And
how to prevent or reduce the severity of
severe winds, tornadoes and hurricanes?

Like math, aviation and Nobel prizes

Welcome to the PF.

Before thinking about winning prizes, have you read the current literature about such things? What journals have you been reading through to familiarize yourself with the current state of the art of knowledge?

 

[greggAJ]

Thanks for responding
I'm a private pilot.
I'm familiar with the accepted explanations for the three.

I recently attended the Tornado Symposium in OKC FEB15
I discovered 3 groups of people at the Symposium.
First responders, Reconstruction, and scientists.
I found the only group interested in prevention is the First responders.
Reconstruction personal and Scientists are better financed by status quo (tornadoes continuing).
Reconstruction gets money from rebuilding.
Scientists/Meteorologists do well by identifying a tornado and it's track.
If tornadoes were prevented, the latter two groups would loose money.

My discovery of the latter two groups does not preclude that I'm right or 'meteorology' is right.
If there is a prize, I'm interested.
Thanks again.

 

[berkeman]

It sounds like your heart is in the right place. As a first responder myself, I'd love to be able to mitigate the dangers of natural disasters.

I don't know of any prize; the normal path would be to use patents or other means for earning money from any new inventions or approaches. You can submit your work to a peer-reviewed scientific journal (can you list a couple of the potential candidate journals?), but then the techniques are in the public domain, so you would not be able to profit exclusively from them.

The first step is to validate that your ideas have merit. You should be able to hire a professional engineer or physicist under NDA to vet your ideas. You would need to go through a reputable engineering firm to make that contact, though. There are too many predatory "patent consultant" firms out there to use just anyone.

 

[berkeman]

Reconstruction personal and Scientists are better financed by status quo (tornadoes continuing).
Reconstruction gets money from rebuilding.
Scientists/Meteorologists do well by identifying a tornado and it's track.
If tornadoes were prevented, the latter two groups would loose money.

BTW, please avoid anything that sounds like a "conspiracy theory" here. That is explicitly against the PF rules.

 

[greggAJ]

It's not my heart, it's my brain.
I've found that most scientists research is too focused.
The only scientist closest to an answer is dead, Vonnegut, Bernard.
It was in his patent.
There is no conspiracy. It's that most people are willing to accept what has come before.
While managing pharmacies in the Army we gave out tons of Tagamet/cimetidine.
It 'worked' for stomach ulcers. Then two Australian doctors discovered the cure for stomach ulcers.
A 10 to 14 day course of antibiotics.
I have a cure and it's going to upset the status quo, just as the two Australian doctors found with their cure.

 

[berkeman]

It's not my heart, it's my brain.
I've found that most scientists research is too focused.
The only scientist closest to an answer is dead, Vonnegut, Bernard.
It was in his patent.
There is no conspiracy. It's that most people are willing to accept what has come before.
While managing pharmacies in the Army we gave out tons of Tagamet/cimetidine.
It 'worked' for stomach ulcers. Then two Australian doctors discovered the cure for stomach ulcers.
A 10 to 14 day course of antibiotics.
I have a cure and it's going to upset the status quo, just as the two Australian doctors found with their cure.

Please re-read the part of the PF Rules (see INFO at the top of the page) where we do not allow personal theories or original research to be discussed here. We discuss mainstream science, as published in peer-reviewed journals and mainstream textbooks.

If you think you have new science and can make contributions to the state of the art (especially in natural disaster mitigation), that's great. But we don't discuss that here. As you have posted your question, you are just asking about prizes or other rewards for introducing such discoveries, and have not indicated that you want to try to develop or discuss your ideas here. As such, that part is not in violation of the PF rules.

Again, I encourage you to hire a professional engineer or scientist to help you out. If your ideas have value, your ROI will be quick, right?

 

[rootone]

Big tornados occur only in severe thunderstorms.
It happens that the southern parts of the US has the perfect geography for producing these when the wind pattern is right.
That is, you have a warm moist air mass heading up from the gulf meeting colder air descending from the rockies.
In this situation the warmer air is forced to produce massive upward convection leaving a local but quite intense area of lower pressure on the ground.
Air from nearby tries to cancel the low pressure by rushing inward and typically you then have the seed for a tornado.
Less spectacular tornados do occur elsewhere in the world though.

As far as I am of aware, this conventional convection theory for tornados is not challenged by any serious contending theory.
If you did have a serious contending theory (with evidence to support it of course), that would certainly be of great interest to meteorologists, but a prize I would doubt it.

I think there were some experiments done with cloud seeding using silver iodide in around the 1970's as a potential method to prevent tornados.
The idea was to get the warm air to dump a lot of it's moisture and energy ahead of meeting the oncoming cold front.
As far as I can recall the results were inconclusive, tornado activity may have been slightly decreased, but certainly not prevented.

 

[greggAJ]

My information meets all conservation of energy rules, it follows, to the letter, various physics laws and principles, when placed in order.
If it uses physics laws to prove how tornadoes work, then it's not a theory.
If scientists are researching the wrong areas of tornadoes, AND can't explain exactly how they work, too bad.
I'm not interested in giving outlandish methods such as A Wall, Bombs, 747 with lasers, exploding rockets, etc.
I've questioned the explanations given on current tornado methodology.
Thanks for responding

 

[berkeman]

My information meets all conservation of energy rules, it follows, to the letter, various physics laws and principles, when placed in order.
If it uses physics laws to prove how tornadoes work, then it's not a theory.
If scientists are researching the wrong areas of tornadoes, AND can't explain exactly how they work, too bad.
I'm not interested in giving outlandish methods such as A Wall, Bombs, 747 with lasers, exploding rockets, etc.
I've questioned the explanations given on current tornado methodology.
Thanks for responding

We do not tolerate challenges to mainstream science here. Please follow my advice and hire a professional to help you develop your ideas. This thread is closed. Check your PMs for the warning...