Hurricane diversion.

"Bill Bonde ( ``Soli Deo Gloria'' )" wrote in message ...
Al Jackson wrote:

(Harold Groot) wrote in message .. .
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 23:13:41 -0400, "Rodney Kelp"
wrote:

What would happen if you dropped a 50 megaton hydrogen bomb in the eye?

Here's a little more official answer from NOAA
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html


An interesting trivia question, what is the most energetic event to happen
on earth,

A large asteroid impact.

What is the 2nd most:

A hurricane.

What's the energy in the jet stream?


--
Hmmm, for that matter, I wonder how energy there is in the Earth's atmosphere
due to wind, total.

"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
I feel it's my duty to solve the hurricane problem once and forever.
Or at least to handwave in a general manner.

How hard is a hurricane to divert?
[snip]

I see various numbers on the web for 3-5 billion a year damage to the US
economy from hurricanes.

What do you think of limiting the federal disaster relief offered every time
one hits? Free market forces can correct for people wanting to live in
these places. If someone wants to build in a known risky location, they and
their communities could buy their own insurance to deal with these events.
It should be taken for granted that on occasion earthquakes hit California,
hurricanes hit Florida, and great rivers rise to fill their flood plains.

I don't know how much money is in these funds. Perhaps they already are low
enough not to distort the market too much.

--
+---- Kevin C. Saff ----+ F-15 | |Eagle
| Engineer in St. Louis | _____|_^_|_____
| Tracking/Fleet Support| * + [_(x)_] + *

Tow a line of icebergs into the general path and keep them on station, cooling
the water to weaken the hurricane.

Kevin Saff wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
I feel it's my duty to solve the hurricane problem once and forever.
Or at least to handwave in a general manner.

How hard is a hurricane to divert?
[snip]

I see various numbers on the web for 3-5 billion a year damage to the US
economy from hurricanes.

What do you think of limiting the federal disaster relief offered every time
one hits? Free market forces can correct for people wanting to live in

Personally I think there should be several solutions.

I don't know the american market well, some of these may already occur.

In disaster prone areas, insurance companies should be forced not to
blanket refuse coverage, but to go property by property.
This would mean that a mobile home in a hurricane prone location
essentially does not get coverage, but if it's inside an earth berm,
adequately constructed, it does.
Planning decisions should have a bias towards survivability of the
structure.
For example, if in a flood area, it'll be much easier to get permission
to build if the house is built on stilts, or on a polystyrene raft.
If in a hurricane area, buildings that can survive 180mph winds, perhaps
partially underground.
In a fire area, the house has to actually be fireproof, so that it
does not catch on fire even if the surroundings do.
....

In article , Ian
Stirling wrote:

Kevin Saff wrote:
"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
I feel it's my duty to solve the hurricane problem once and forever.
Or at least to handwave in a general manner.

How hard is a hurricane to divert?
[snip]

I see various numbers on the web for 3-5 billion a year damage to the US
economy from hurricanes.

What do you think of limiting the federal disaster relief offered every time
one hits? Free market forces can correct for people wanting to live in

Personally I think there should be several solutions.

I don't know the american market well, some of these may already occur.

In disaster prone areas, insurance companies should be forced not to
blanket refuse coverage, but to go property by property.
This would mean that a mobile home in a hurricane prone location
essentially does not get coverage, but if it's inside an earth berm,
adequately constructed, it does.

Main problem would be that the poorer people living in the one place
they can afford would lose everything whenever a hurricane hits, while
those more well off get insurance money. Your now broke homeless poor
are going to get a bit angry, and get some weapons...

Now, I have no sympathy for someone building a $1 million house on a
floodplain. They should get no insurance money

Planning decisions should have a bias towards survivability of the
structure.
For example, if in a flood area, it'll be much easier to get permission
to build if the house is built on stilts, or on a polystyrene raft.
If in a hurricane area, buildings that can survive 180mph winds, perhaps
partially underground.
In a fire area, the house has to actually be fireproof, so that it
does not catch on fire even if the surroundings do.

Only giving insurance to those who's houses won't be damaged does seem
like a good way to go

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
I feel it's my duty to solve the hurricane problem once and forever.
Or at least to handwave in a general manner.

How hard is a hurricane to divert?
I assume that you'r not going to stop it dead unless you get rather
drastic, and either cool the seawater it's over, put a barrier film over
that water, or mechanically stop the rotation.
The first and third seem nearly magical, the second merely an engineering
nightmare.

Steering may be possible.
What if you significantly reduce insolation over one half of the hurricane?
Or would you need to cool the water in half of its track.

I see various numbers on the web for 3-5 billion a year damage to the US
economy from hurricanes.

Actually, the second route doesn't seem that bad. Apparently, one can
place several thousand large pipes in the Gulf Stream oriented so that
one end is near the warm surface and the other is near the much cooler
bottom. Use the flow of the Gulf Stream to pull deeper water to the
surface and cool the surface by a few degrees. That apparently can
make a significant difference and the project would be on the order of
a hurricane's worth of damage.

As far as detonating a nuke in the eye of a hurricane, even if you got
a big enough one, the overpressure situation would be temporary, but
the release of energy would aggrevate the storm IMHO.

Finally, we need to consider whether thwarting hurricanes is such a
good idea. They basically are huge heat pumps that transfer heat
fairly efficiently from the ocean surface to space. If we somehow were
to completely eliminate hurricanes, then ocean waters will be warmer!
That might kill off coral and other heat-sensitive organisms.


Karl Hallowell

Karl Hallowell wrote:

Finally, we need to consider whether thwarting hurricanes is such a
good idea. They basically are huge heat pumps that transfer heat
fairly efficiently from the ocean surface to space. If we somehow were
to completely eliminate hurricanes, then ocean waters will be warmer!
That might kill off coral and other heat-sensitive organisms.

Tropical storms also provide a significant fraction of the
rain that falls on the southeast US.

Paul