Weather

Any solution with enough energy to directly affect a tornado is going to require a catastrophic amount of energy. Last thing you want is to kill more people than you hoped to save.
We already have that ethical dilemma in the example of floods. The poor neighbourhoods are sacrificed to protect the rich. Imagine if we had the power to divert a hurricane. Where would we send it?
 
We already have that ethical dilemma in the example of floods. The poor neighbourhoods are sacrificed to protect the rich. Imagine if we had the power to divert a hurricane. Where would we send it?
I can hook my PC up to a large screen TV and a pretty good sound system. Which gives the luxury of watching/listening to stupid things on youtube while leisurely doing chores.

And today's stupid was:
Half an hour but, Michio Kaku, is right at the beginning, and which I found offbeat.

Later, I checked the HAARP wiki page, skimmed the the conspiracies, and thought this was not a weapon, per se, but some super device that could be used to terraform a planet.

(may half to rewind to beginning)
 
Remember to filter out the great ragged lumps of plastic garbage!

Better still don't put in the great ragged lumps of plastic garbage in the water in the first instance

But I suspect you know that

:)
 
Better still don't put in the great ragged lumps of plastic garbage in the water in the first instance:)
30 years too late. Most people have no idea how much oil is in sea-water, either; how many spills there have been from tankers and deep drilling rigs.
Yes, I knew that back in 1976, when bottled water became fashionable
Imagine if we had the power to divert a hurricane. Where would we send it?
Puerto Rico.
.
 
30 years too late. Most people have no idea how much oil is in sea-water, either; how many spills there have been from tankers and deep drilling rigs.
I think Michael was making a a jab at Xmo1's idea of capturing tornadoes in giant garbage bags. :wink:
 
That's actually a very good point.

As Hypocrates said "First do no harm."
Any solution with enough energy to directly affect a tornado is going to require a catastrophic amount of energy. Last thing you want is to kill more people than you hoped to save.

if you wanted to spend money i guess with an Operation Chrome Dome type cycle of 747,s all customised to drop some type of moisture grabbing granules or electrical compounds it might be possible.
though a diving aging 747 that is doing a dive bomb on a forming tornado close to a city is probably going to raise some other concerns.
would probably block peoples drains and then cause flooding.
 
This may be of interest;
Ocean acidification to hit levels not seen in 14 million years.
July 23, 2018 by Julia Short, Cardiff University

Around a third of the CO2 released by burning coal, oil and gas gets dissolved into the oceans. Since the beginning of the industrial era, the ocean has absorbed around 525 billion tons of CO2, equivalent to around 22 million tons per day.
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-07-ocean-acidification-million-years.html#jCp
 
If the frequency of 50C heat spikes this year - in the worry zones (around the Gulf of Oman, the low regions of Pakistan and India, the Yangtze River valley and Seven Ovens of China) - are taken as establishing the new Bell Curve rather than outlying an older one, we are now entering the time of statistical likelihood (>50%) for a normatively lethal heat spike event in one of those regions within a human lifetime.

So we can modify the weather, and use it to kill people. We just can't aim it.
 
Back
Top