
Why don't we try to destroy tropical cyclones by nuking them? - rglovejoy
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html
======
anulman
I ran almost this exact topic as what's called a "style case" at a university
debating tournament a year or two ago. It was one of my favourite things of
life.

(A "style case" is one where the facts or logical reasoning behind an argument
are secondary to how funny and entertaining your arguments and persuasive
efforts are.)

According to what we concluded in that round, we _need_ to start destroying
tropical cyclones, and any other of Mother Nature's "attacks" on us, in order
to better condition her and bend her to our will. It's Psychology 101, folks.

Apparently the NOAA disagrees. If this were the McCarthy era, I'd call them
communists and be done with it.

~~~
CamperBob
I saw a great 'style case' on another forum the other day. Someone was
pointing out that mercury in fluorescent bulbs was even more hazardous than
radioactive waste in a sense, because at least the radioactive waste would
eventually decay into something harmless. The counterpoint was, "Well, they
should just use mercury-194, which decays with a half-life of only 400 years,
and turns into gold, to boot."

------
frossie
Am I the only person disturbed that this is an actual _F_ AQ that crops up
"every hurricane season"

~~~
azanar
I am disturbed by the larger philosophy it represents; that things will be
much, much better if we can just stop all of the destructive forces of nature
from occurring. If we can prevent tropical cyclones, tornadoes, earthquakes,
volcanic eruptions and the like, then everything will be ok.

What such a philosophy fails to take into account is that these forces aren't
_just_ destructive. They represent a system that has a certain equilibrium
which is maintained by periodically removing excess energy that has been
introduced. Sometimes this surplus of energy is quite considerable, and so the
transfer of that energy results in damage to things along the path.

It is possible that going the other direction might work for some things;
force the energy transfer to occur more often but less severely. However, even
this might have unintended consequences. Less powerful tropical cyclones may
not survive to areas as far inland that may depend on their seasonal arrival
for necessary rainfall.

I think the best thing we could do is educate people that certain things are
not and will never be in our control, and that our reaction should not be
panic and sensationalism but cautious respect and preparation.

~~~
lsb
But modern life can't tolerate such deep and profound respect for the planet
that cyclone-acceptance requires.

People forget that Manhattan island was once under a glacier, a couple
thousand years ago. When people talk about "preventing and reversing climate
change", they're not talking about putting Manhattan back under a glacier.

~~~
azanar
This analogy is a bit off. Manhattan is no longer under a glacier for the same
reasons cyclones form. Climate change has been a part of this planet's
behavior for the whole time it has been inhabited by _any_ forms of life. To
complete the analogy, I wouldn't will us to put the heat energy from the
cyclone back into the tropical ocean that fueled it.

For that matter, modern life already tolerates deep, profound respect for
processes on this planet. Research being done right now into the formation of
tornadoes in the plains every spring is being done with the goal of greater
detection. Tornado _prevention_ is not something I hear a whole lot about; the
goal is to get people out of the way while something of immense energy plows
through a region.

Building tornado shelters, much like building stilted houses along the coast,
or buildings ables to withstand repeated ground waves along the West coast,
are a result of people coming to understand these forces and how they behave.
This to me rings of a pretty deep and profound respect; a recognition of
something to be studied and understood, not just prevented, and maybe not even
_to be_ prevented once we understand the implications.

Maybe I _am_ discounting too much the power of our ingenuity; maybe I am
calling for too much humility. Perhaps, in time, we will discover a way to do
what tropical cyclones do without unwanted side-effects. Depending, I might
even want to help work on it. But I am not optimistic that we will.

------
rjurney
Why is it every two days someone is conspiring a new way to take my waves? In
summertime, east coast surfers ONLY get to surf hurricanes. We love
hurricanes. Its the only time we get overhead waves, glassy smooth water
surface and offshore winds.

------
azanar
This NOAA FAQ covers the infeasibility of doing this, but even if it were
possible, via nuclear detonation or otherwise, there is still the conversation
of whether it is wise to do so even if we could. What lasting effects this
might have upon the climate?

As I've understood, the hurricanes that form every year are actually part of a
process of advecting heat energy from the surface tropical regions to the
higher altitudes and higher latitudes. I remember seeing a ocean temperature
analysis just before and after Hurricane Rita traveled across the Gulf of
Mexico, and the drop in ocean temperature was quite noticeable. Similar drops,
to a lesser degree, can be observed with all tropical storms.

This process is really important to keeping temperatures around the planet
more balanced that they would be otherwise. It also keeps the temperature of
tropical oceans somewhat in check, so they don't spawn even more energetic
cyclones later on. If we start trying to control this, there is the risk that
we will screw ourselves by making tropical storms less frequent but much more
severe.

------
azzleandre
Reading the article raises an old question: When will we be able to retrieve
the power from a hurricane? Let the thunderstorm occur and using the [YET-TO-
INVENT]-technique, to power our civilization for... let's say a year.

~~~
mechanical_fish
The problem, as always, is energy storage. It's the real bottleneck. Batteries
don't have a high energy density, they wear out quickly, they're heavy, and
they cost a lot of energy and material to build.

If we could package up the energy coming out of some hurricane-powered
turbines, store it up for a year, and ship it around the country cheaply...
yeah, our energy worries would be a lot fewer. Especially if the same
technology could be applied to solar grids in Arizona.

The problem with a hurricane, of course, is that you get a lot of energy but
you get it _all at once_. You can store a lot of energy in a tree, but you
can't turn a tree's worth of energy into a tree in five minutes. You'd rather
that the energy trickle in over time, so that you have time to capture it.

~~~
dflock
Does anyone know - or know how to figure out - how much power is 'stored' at
any given time in the globe's power transmission lines? Intuitively, this must
be a pretty huge amount - basically 1x the global power consumption at any
given instant? Anyone know if there's any/much spare capacity, that could
actually be used as a massive distributed battery?

------
narag
If cyclons produce so much energy, the question should be how do we capture
it, not how to destroy them.

~~~
DrJokepu
Needless to say that hurricans, of course, ultimately get their energy from
sunlight. As you can see, solar power is tremendous and got quite some
potential, we should really concentrate on developing better means to more
efficiently harvest the radiation of our stellar neighbour.

~~~
randallsquared
Better means would be nice, but aren't necessary: solar power satellites are
well within current tech, and enough of them to power the entire US would have
cost less than the Iraq War, assuming prize-funding rather than NASA.

------
seldo
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to
be sure."

------
cema
<sarcasm>Or better yet, why don't we try to destroy our nuclear arsenal by
dropping it in cyclones? Two birds, one stone.</sarcasm>

Now let's see. First, there is a question of what effect it would have. How
powerful should a nuke be in order to actually destroy a medium sized
hurricane, and how will it affect the atmosphere and biosphere and the earth
surface near the epicenter? Second, what should we do with the nuclear
fallout? I am sure there are more questions to ask.

~~~
jballanc
I don't think all the nuclear weapons on the earth, detonated simultaneously,
would have any affect at all on even the smallest of hurricanes. I once had
the students in my intro chemistry course do some rough thermodynamics
calculations on the topic. Essentially, if you assume that all of the thermal
energy of the nuclear detonation is converted into expansion work and that
this work is exerted specifically on the eye, what you come up with is that a
single Hiroshima sized bomb would cause the radius of the eye of a strong
hurricane to expand by around 30 cm.

The real problem, though, is that this represents an extreme upper limit on
the effect that the nuclear weapon would have. Since most of a nuclear
weapon's energy is in the initial impulse, most of it will pass through the
hurricane with no effect whatsoever.

~~~
cema
Perhaps we should target not the eye but the periphery? The point would be not
so much to destroy as deflect the hurricane while also fragmenting it. Instead
of dropping one in the eye, blow up several nukes around it.

Another point to consider is we can try to use a nuclear explosion in order to
prevent a hurricane from forming if we catch it early enough. Is that
possible?

I do doubt that we can routinely nuke hurricanes (even ignoring the radiation
effects), but looking at just the mechanical effects, I think it would be
interesting to take another look at the picture. I am not sure that the
effects of turbulence can be calculated, but how much can we get from the
first principles?

BTW, Hiroshima was about 15 kt, if I am not mistaken, and the average modern
nuke is on the order of 400 kt.

~~~
jballanc
Ultimately, regardless of power, the point is that a nuke's energy is in the
impulse. It's destructive to solid material (like buildings and humans), but
the impulse travels through the air similar to a sound wave. It's like trying
to stop a Tsunami using an underwater nuke. You'd just have two waves
interface, and continue moving on their merry way.

~~~
cema
Can we make them cancel each other?

------
phugoid
Their "scientific" explanation is nonsense. Their compare the "energy" of the
hurricane system with that of a detonation. Then they say you could change the
Category of a hurricane by just increasing the ambient pressure.

Angular momentum is conserved. If you create a detonation in the middle of a
spinning storm, you'll get the usual explosion effect (fast) overlaid on the
spinning storm (relatively slow). That's even more nasty than either effect on
its own.

------
gaius
Damn right we need to destroy the Cylons! Look what happened last time!

------
anigbrowl
Some people should definitely not take up hacking.

------
hopeless
People who ask that question should be disqualified from breeding.

------
leed25d
Now we know what Bill Gates is up to.

------
bkrausz
Dammit...there goes my startup for weather alteration. My board of directors
is going to be pissed...especially Mr. Jong-il.

