None at all.
Also, we're not getting warmer. Climate change isn't real. The fires in the Amazon and Siberia are fake news.
Move along. Move along.
If you have no concept of the physics and energy differentials between the two, it seems a reasonable question - nukes are powerful and destructive, hurricanes are powerful and destructive. Why not destroy one with the other?
All that matters is any politician asking the question has an adviser or researcher able to explain why it's a poor idea...
Sometimes sarcasm works, but it is a tricky thing to get right. As someone prone to sarcasm myself, I have learned the hard way that it rarely helps me get any point across.
The true story is about whether sovereignty of Brazil should be violated to protect the rainforest.
> The National Institute for Space Research (Inpe) says its satellite data shows an 85% increase on the same period in 2018.
> The official figures show more than 75,000 forest fires were recorded in Brazil in the first eight months of the year - the highest number since 2013. That compares with 40,000 in the same period in 2018.
> Roraima saw a 141% increase, Acre 138%, Rondônia 115% and Amazonas 81%. Mato Grosso do Sul, further south, saw a 114% increase.
> Meanwhile, US space agency Nasa said that overall fire activity in the Amazon basin was slightly below average this year.
> The agency said that while activity had increased in Amazonas and Rondonia, it had decreased in the states of Mato Grosso and Pará.
Also this chart:
The link from 'mikedilger in a parallel reply is even better. It seems that if you include data from previous decade, and not just since 2012, then current fires are nothing special.
And is it really inconceivable to think Trump would ask this ?
What exactly are those things, except a) knowing the difference of scale in energies involved, and b) stability of cyclones? A random person off the street won't know any better, and a random faculty member from a random university won't likely know better either.
It's not a dumb question to ask, and the answer requires somewhat specialist knowledge.
>this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea.
The usual thing people think of as "fallout" is the result of low-altitude detonation, where the explosion draws up dirt/dust/water vapor, makes some of that radioactive, and creates a cloud of radioactive particulates that then settles in a large area downwind of the explosion. This is the massively dangerous fallout that's usually associated with nuclear weapons.
TL;DR: air bursts != ground-level bursts, and if one doesn't know about the energy scale difference involved, it doesn't seem so dumb to ask if detonating a nuke high up in the cyclone would be helpful.
Are you saying you and Trump are correct not to trust NOAA, and that Stan Goldenberg and Dr. Hugh Willoughby who wrote the article are spreading misinformation?
Stan Goldenberg's scientific contributions:
Stan Goldenberg on Conan O'Brien -- Promoting CYCLONE! by National Geographic:
Dr. Hugh Willoughby:
Tag: Hugh Willoughby:
So what are your qualifications, or are you just another armchair pundit off the street, attempting to argue that Trump isn't dumb to ignore what top expert scientists keep telling him about preventing climate change and not nuking hurricanes?
As for Jimmy Carter I agree and I have to wonder: why is it that intelligence seems to be strongly inversely coorelated with effectiveness as a president? Jimmy Carter was wildly intelligent and a really nice guy, but couldn't get anything done. Donald Trump is less intelligent and often abrasive, yet he seems to be getting heaps of accomplishments under his belt (not all good ones, but largely so). Is it quantity vs quality? Or paralysis of analysis? There is no definitive answer as these are judgement calls, but I think this is fertile ground for aspiring entrepreneurs to try and grok.
Paul Johnson discusses this in his chapter in Heroes about Reagan, Thatcher, and John Paul II. He has concluded that politicians succeed when they focus on three or four simple ideas. Reagan was very different from Thatcher—he was, according to Johnson (a personal friend of both, mind you), ignorant and poorly educated, while she was an Oxford-educated chemist with a law degree—but they both focused on straightforward goals, reducing government's reach and fighting Soviet Communism being two they shared. They worked very well together, too.
Trump's list seems to include
* Illegal aliens
* North Korea
* US manufacturing
There's no way to hotlink it directly so just search for "hurricane" in the page.