Ah, of course somebody was going to suggest that we simply stop hurricanes dead in their tracks; after all, there is always a technological solution to everything, right?
Wrong. In fact, the US government conducted research from the 1960s through the '80s on how to stop or at least decrease the intensity of hurricanes, through a project called Stormfury, which cost several hundred million dollars. The idea was to drop silver iodide into clouds to facilitate the formation of ice nuclei, forming a new eyewall within the hurricane, which would collapse the original one and make the storm less dangerous. It didn't work. Hurricanes are simply too complex and powerful.
Ludicrously enough, at several points during the past decades, the suggestion has seriously been made to drop an atomic bomb inside a hurricane to wipe it away, an idea that not only smacks of environmental disaster, but is also absurdly naive once one compares the energy released by a human made bomb with that of a hurricane (according to the article referenced here, the heat energy released by a hurricane equals 50 to 200 trillion watts, or about the same amount of energy released by exploding a 10-megaton nuclear bomb every 20 minutes! Note: energy is actually measured in watt/second, as a reader of this blog pointed out).
Nope, we just have to live with nature, at least within certain limits, and it would be so much better if we didn't insist in building cities on coastal areas that are actually below water level. Sorry, New Orleans, but you really ought to go...
Rationally Speaking: an archived blog about science & philosophy, by Massimo Pigliucci
Sorry, New Orleans, but you really ought to go...
ReplyDeleteHa, let's start with Venezia first.
I spent a week there when I was 7, and all I can remember is how dirty and yucky it was.
Ah, I knew that was coming! But there are some crucial differences: first, Venezia was not originally built below water level, the problem is part of the more general geological and land changes affecting that part of the Mediterranean coast; second, the Mediterranean doesn't have hurricanes, and so far people haven't lost lives and huge amounts of property because of the (slow) sinking of Venezia.
ReplyDeleteBut of course, Venezia will sink, and eventually half of the Netherlands (including Amsterdam) will be below water too. So be it, what are we going to do, start a war on geophysics? :-)
So be it, what are we going to do, start a war on geophysics? :-)
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose if you can declare war on a nebulous entity like "terrorism", you can do the same for geophysics.
Of course, there's no real need to worry. The Rapture will happen way before anything sinks below sea level.
Scientific American had an article called Controlling Hurricanes in its October 2004 issue.
ReplyDeleteExcellent point about the manifest ideological use of science by Bush (he ain't the only politician to do that, of course).
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to your friend? My father must have had a similar thought process, but unfortunately he didn't survive it.
Another thing, which several "letters to the editor" after that Sci Am article also pointed out: even if there is indeed a feasible way to avert hurricanes and the like, should we do it? What would be the consequences for climate? We can't predict that, climate is a complex system, not by accident a very cited text book example for chaos theory.
ReplyDeleteBut seems like hurricanes bring an enormous amount of water and heat to the continental US, I guess everyone would agree. What would happen if we somehow stopped this flow of energy and water? I would think the consequences of NOT having the hurricanes might be much worse than the destruction they cause.
Well, easy to talk when I'm not one of those on the monster's path (at least most of the time), but food for thought nonetheless...
J
Israel Developing Technology to Reduce Hurricane Damage
ReplyDeletehttp://www.arutzsheva.org/news.php3
?id=90316
I'm surprised to see you, a scientist, using the watt as a unit of energy. The watt is a unit of power. Energy, which is power applied over time, is expressed in joules (watt-seconds).
ReplyDeleteBill, good point. That was a direct quote from the linked article. I doubled checked, and they got it wrong. Thanks for the correction.
ReplyDelete