Artificially altering the strength of hurricanes.
I don’t have anything to say about Cecil’s column specifically, but it’s indescribably cool to have a question I wrote on GQ turn up as a regular column! Cecil even mentioned me by name!
Could we also get a link to that original GQ column? I want to read what the Teeming Masses had to say.
Cecil mentions the idea of seeding hurricane clouds with silver iodide. Trivia fact that, as far as I can tell, isn’t well known: Who invented the idea of seeding clouds with silver iodide?
Atmospheric scientist Bernard Vonnegut, brother of Kurt Vonnegut.
ETA: Here it is. My friend Google found it for me:
Is Artificially Weakening/Destroying a Hurricane Possible, Even In Theory?
The failure of Stormfury appears to be that there’s not enough supercooled water vapor in a hurricane that needs seeding … and those two new ideas would require billions of yachts or tubes, there’s one hell of a lot of square feet to cover (around 40 trillion) … cheaper to spray water in the lower stratosphere and make gigantic contrails to reflect solar energy back out into space …
“Now, consider the escalating costs of rebuilding American cities after more intense and more frequent hurricanes …”
Shame on you, Unca Cece, more intense and more frequent hurricanes has not be demonstrated, that’s pure speculation, we need another 50 years of data to make that claim {Cite} … aren’t hurricanes bad enough right now, at some point we have to ask the citizens of New Orleans to STOP building 10 foot below sea level, 'cause that’s kind of a bad idea …
That was a great question, HeyHomie, you’ve done the Teeming Millions proud …
Just put up a hurricane fence. They’re readily available, you can even get them at the Home Depot.
Typo in the column:
H-squared-O? Cringe!
Let’s see, it could be HO with deuterium, but the “2” is on the wrong side. Or the Oxygen has a mass of 2 which implies some negative mass components. Or the hydrogen has 2 extra electrons and the - in 2- was dropped since 2+ for Hydrogen doesn’t make sense. Or …
Maybe that notation indicates some manner of Quantum Relativity meta-stable state … quarter tone harmonic pseudo-balancing … although it should read "H[sup]-2i[/sup] O, can’t forget the imagination factor now can we? …
Right. We’ve already got too many loons running around muttering about chemtrails. Now you think intentionally making giant contrails is a good idea?
Now now, we can’t let these loons dictate our national policies … that would be like saying we shouldn’t fake any manned Mars missions because someone will bring up the faked Moon landings … or not assassinate any more Presidents because we’re all sick of hearing about the JFK conspiracy …
Besides, we may be doing this already … temperatures across the US were 2-3ºC higher between Sept 11th and Sept 13th, 2001 when the airspace was closed … a very interesting coincidence, something worth examining to see if real cause-and-effect exist … just how much do chemtrails and soot increase albedo? …
We’d have to test that to make sure it wasn’t a spurious result. So lets fake a couple more airline attacks against prominent targets so we can shut down the national airspace again.
Test the negative … find someplace that doesn’t have commercial jet traffic … see if running some back and forth lowers the temperatures …
:sigh:
As usual (several times already) we have to point to you that while some do get it wrong about the frequency of hurricanes (what is uncertain) the cite you use still points as usual about what is more certain: the increase in intensity of the hurricanes.
So, again as pointed many times before, it is likely for the intensity to increase more and there is evidence already that the intensity or damage caused by hurricanes has increased. The increase in the number of the hurricanes to come is the big unknown; but as also pointed many times before, many contrarians just can not help but to rely on the high uncertainty about the number of hurricanes of the future, like if the uncertainty applies to all items and should be used as a defense. In reality uncertainty is not our friend. One should never forget that other issues are more certain, like an increase in water vapor in hurricane regions, increase on the ocean level, ocean acidification, cap ice loss, etc. Those things will cost a lot for current and future generations while there is a discussion about possibly **adding **yet another costly item to the list.
I, for one, am impressed.
Good on ya, **HeyHomie **!
I remember seeing a NOVA documentary on that, some years ago:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/
Fascinating stuff, that they were able to measure the difference during those few days in September.
Sigh.
Yet another person who is unable to distinguish data from model. The cite given shows data that there is no distinguishable change in the number of hurricanes, and gushes on about how models show that there will be a future increase in the intensity of hurricanes. Is there any data showing that hurricane intensity has been increasing? No.
[sigh] … y’all can point out your beliefs all you want to … if you want me to believe, then show me the math … let me paraphrase the citation in more simple terms for you … if we want to compare 50-year averages, we must have more than one 50-year average … that means we have to wait fifty years because we’ve only been able to count tropical storms in a scientifically accurate way for fifty years (only since the beginning of the Age of Satellites) … one datum a trend doth not make …
Note the main conclusion of the citation:
Emphasis theirs
You are wrong … the fluid dynamic folks are saying there’s no detectable evidence of any kind that hurricane frequency or intensity is increasing (see quote above) … and damage caused as measured by dollar amounts is also functional to inflation, stricter building codes, higher populations and people who don’t follow weather forecasts …
Let’s do some simple math here … and I’ll go ahead and use the upper bound of what can be predicted with science … 11% more intense hurricanes in 100 years … Hurricane Irma made landfall near Naples, FL as a 938 mb storm, or 75 mb below the standard atmosphere of 1013 mb … 11% of that is 8 mb which would make Irma a 930 mb storm, that’s a trivial difference … insignificant compared to Naples being underwater by then …
Using our atmosphere as a sewer is very cheap … stopping this practice is expensive … fortunately science has given us ample warning, so we can divide this cost over a hundred years … phaw, you tell me, GIGObuster: what does society look like four generations hence? …
My new home doesn’t have electric power on the inside, just a temp plug by the meter … in twelve days I’ve used 33 kW-hrs of juice … refrigerator, computer, a couple of lights (water heater and stove on gas); there’s a few inconveniences but nothing that impedes anything important … c’mon man, using 300 kW-hrs in two weeks is just bathing in luxury, have to poison something to live like that … ditch the A/C will ya …
[Post shortened]
Well that is as far as one needs to goes, because I pointed already to the math about how water vapor and precipitation increases in a warming world and that it increases the intensity of hurricanes, but we only got crickets from you in a previous thread where you participated.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=20470034&postcount=49
BTW it is clear in context that the fluid dynamic folks are talking about the number of hurricanes on the conclusion you cherry picked, not the intensity of them when they do show up. As **wolfpup **pointed out in another thread, you are looking at a cite that is omitting a lot and not the only one nor the only scientists looking at the issue.
Yes, as posted already, unless you can demonstrate that the Clausius–Clapeyron equation, a widely accepted physical law, is bananas.