|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
Roger Zoul wrote: How do you know that's what will happen? It might disrupt the whirpool effect. Done any simulations lately, Dumbass? Dumbass - It's likely to enhance it. The shock wave from a nuke is perpendicular to the direction of the winds and the heat from the blast, if it's in the eye, will cause air to rise, thereby increasing the spin rate of the "whirlpool". Hurricanes happen in the Atlantic in large part because of warm air rising (heated by the water) in the eye. The nuke would enhance this feature, temporarily, by a huge amount. No I haven't done any simulations. I'm no a Fluid Dynamics expert (can hardly get my head around a single partial differential equation, let alone the endless cascades of Fourier transforms which describe fluids) and even if I were, today's supercomputers are way, way, way too slow to run the simulation. thanks, K. Gringioni. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
Roger Zoul wrote: How do you know that's what will happen? It might disrupt the whirpool effect. Done any simulations lately, Dumbass? Dumbass, At least Kurgan gave a reasonably coherent explanation for what he thought might happen. Hurricanes are big. Really big. See Bill Asher's post for how big. But anyway, a lot bigger than the puny amounts of energy humans have learned how to manipulate. The best way to minimize hurricane damage is to stay out of the hurricane's ****ing way. Here's a not-so-bad article from McPaper about some futile attempts to control hurricanes: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurr...wstormfury.htm It's a little incomplete because it omits that the experts now think the basis for the project (eyewall weakening) is something that happens cyclically in hurricanes anyway: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...lacement_x.htm BTW, hurricanes draw energy from the circulation of winds which is caused by the rotation of the Earth. So maybe Pat Robertson should try to do a Joshua-at-the-walls-of-Jericho and make the earth stand still. Hey, it's worth a shot. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
William Asher wrote: That would be an interesting experiment. It wouldn't stop the hurricane though. A nuke in the eye, especially if it was under water, would cause the water to heat up and the resultant rise in water temperature along with the mushroom cloud rising into the air would add energy to the hurricane, speeding up its "whirpool" effect and increasing the velocity of the winds. The wind could very well temporarily go up really, really high. I think we should try it. thanks, K. Gringioni. Not quite. You need to do the math. Your typical large nuke might release around 20 tera-Joules (TJ) in a fraction of a second. Divide that energy into the typical blast radius of make 10 km and a typical mixed layer depth of 100 m (assuming all that energy will be converted directly into heat (which is isn't)) and you get a relatively small increase in sea surface temperature. And the atmospheric thermal plume of a bomb burst is teeny tiny compared to the total area of a hurricane so it is already vaporizing more water than the bomb burst. You can think of it in another way by looking at the energy dynamics. The average power required to sustain a hurricane is on order of 1.5 tera-Watts (i.e., 1.5 TJ/s) and the energy it releases in the form of rain is around 600 tera-Watts (i.e., 600 TJ/s). So every minute (or so) a hurricane dissipates 30 times more energy than one big bomb and one big bomb would only provide enough energy for 20 minutes of hurricane force winds. Dumbass - Good analysis, but I wrote "temporarily". I think the wind around the eye would go up really high (the air rushing back into vacuum from the atmospheric tests in New Mexico were 400mph, and, as you know, those bombs were very small compared to the multi-megaton ones we have now) for a short period of time, until the heat dissipated. Then the hurricane would go back to its former self. just speculating, K. Gringioni. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
"Kurgan Gringioni" wrote in
oups.com: William Asher wrote: That would be an interesting experiment. It wouldn't stop the hurricane though. A nuke in the eye, especially if it was under water, would cause the water to heat up and the resultant rise in water temperature along with the mushroom cloud rising into the air would add energy to the hurricane, speeding up its "whirpool" effect and increasing the velocity of the winds. The wind could very well temporarily go up really, really high. I think we should try it. thanks, K. Gringioni. Not quite. You need to do the math. Your typical large nuke might release around 20 tera-Joules (TJ) in a fraction of a second. Divide that energy into the typical blast radius of make 10 km and a typical mixed layer depth of 100 m (assuming all that energy will be converted directly into heat (which is isn't)) and you get a relatively small increase in sea surface temperature. And the atmospheric thermal plume of a bomb burst is teeny tiny compared to the total area of a hurricane so it is already vaporizing more water than the bomb burst. You can think of it in another way by looking at the energy dynamics. The average power required to sustain a hurricane is on order of 1.5 tera-Watts (i.e., 1.5 TJ/s) and the energy it releases in the form of rain is around 600 tera-Watts (i.e., 600 TJ/s). So every minute (or so) a hurricane dissipates 30 times more energy than one big bomb and one big bomb would only provide enough energy for 20 minutes of hurricane force winds. Dumbass - Good analysis, but I wrote "temporarily". I think the wind around the eye would go up really high (the air rushing back into vacuum from the atmospheric tests in New Mexico were 400mph, and, as you know, those bombs were very small compared to the multi-megaton ones we have now) for a short period of time, until the heat dissipated. Then the hurricane would go back to its former self. just speculating, K. Gringioni. That figure for the wind speed is right at the explosion site. Farther out it is much less. http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf (see Table 3 on page 18) A few things about that table, it is for a 1 MT burst at 8,000 ft altitude (and most warheads nowadays are considerably smaller, not larger, than 1 MT (e.g., the Peacekeeper warheads are on the order of 400 kT and Trident warheads maybe 100 kT (*and*, I might add, I based my initial calculations roughly on a bomb the size of the Oak test of Operation Hardtack and that was around 10 MT (and the largest bomb ever was a Soviet one of maybe 50 MT so it is not like you are going to get orders of magnitude larger warheads)))). Secondly, at distances typical of the radii of a large tropical cyclone (maybe 10 miles), the blast wind is trivial compared to the eyewall wind velocity (which I recall as being essentially the maximum velocity in the storm). Furthermore, as I mentioned, wind speeds of the same order of magnitude as the maximum wind speeds in that table have been measured inside the convecting clouds inside the eye, so it is not like you are exposing the storm to something it doesn't already get exposed to (and it is late so I am going to end that sentence with a preposition, **** you Mr Grammar Person). Finally, the blast overpressure from an airburst is a short-duration event. The blast wave from an underwater detonation is even less intense and since only about 35% of a blasts energy comes off directly as heat there isn't enough energy to make a difference to the moisture flux. You need to face facts that a nuclear burst simply doesn't have enough energy for a hurricane to even feel for an instant, especially when you consider I wrote "minutes" instead of "seconds" in my initial analysis. Hurricane Charley in 2004 was likened to the finger of god being dragged across Florida because it was so intense and compact. Katrina and Rita are like the fists of Thor, and the biggest baddest nuke on the planet would do dick-all to storms of that size. You can't fool with mother nature. -- Bill Asher |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
Carl Sundquist wrote:
wrote: How about: Don't build your house next to the ocean, and if you do, don't ask us to pay to rebuild it. Should Rita make landfall around Galveston/Houston and wreak significant damage, I foresee the possibility of insurance companies filing bankruptcy. Meanwhile, Swiss Re's prediction from last year is looking solid... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0303-07.htm |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
" wrote in
oups.com: Roger Zoul wrote: How do you know that's what will happen? It might disrupt the whirpool effect. Done any simulations lately, Dumbass? Dumbass, At least Kurgan gave a reasonably coherent explanation for what he thought might happen. Hurricanes are big. Really big. See Bill Asher's post for how big. But anyway, a lot bigger than the puny amounts of energy humans have learned how to manipulate. The best way to minimize hurricane damage is to stay out of the hurricane's ****ing way. Here's a not-so-bad article from McPaper about some futile attempts to control hurricanes: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/hurr...wstormfury.htm It's a little incomplete because it omits that the experts now think the basis for the project (eyewall weakening) is something that happens cyclically in hurricanes anyway: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...-15-eyewall-re placement_x.htm BTW, hurricanes draw energy from the circulation of winds which is caused by the rotation of the Earth. So maybe Pat Robertson should try to do a Joshua-at-the-walls-of-Jericho and make the earth stand still. Hey, it's worth a shot. And if you read the discussions on the NHC website (www.nhc.noaa.gov, the archived discussions for Katrina are particularly interesting) they note that eyewall replacement cycles are not such a great thing since the wind speed decreases but the storm diameter increases (all things conserve energy and momentum) so the destructive radius is bigger. I think that saying hurricanes draw energy from the Earth's rotation is a bit misleading. A hurricane's energy comes from evaporating water and then convecting it aloft where it condenses into rain releasing heat that drives more convection. The wind that is air moving in to replace the air that convected upwards starts to spin because of the Coriolis acceleration, but I don't think the hurricane really draws a lot of energy out of that acceleration. In the absence of Coriolis it is likely you wouldn't form a nice cyclonic storm since that is what organizes the convection and keeps it spinning, but the convection would still happen since the energy (in the form of warm water) is still there. Anyway, from a heat budget of the planet perspective it is not entirely clear you want to stop hurricanes. They transport a substantial amount of heat pole-ward from the equatorial regions and it isn't clear what would happen if they were suppressed. Besides, the ones we get here are piddly stuff compared to the super typhoons that hit Asia and you don't hear them wanting to lob nukes in the ocean. At the Joint Typhoon Warning Center's website (https://metoc.npmoc.navy.mil/jtwc.html) you can take a look at some archived satellite images from storms that have hit Japan recently. e.g., http://tinyurl.com/7sa9x (ok, this is from a NOAA website, but JTWC has archived images too) -- Bill Asher |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
Osama Bin Ladin must be loving his new weather machine!! He keeps sending
hurricanes to the Yanks!!! "crit PRO" wrote in message oups.com... Wouldn't that put a stop to her? cp #5 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
Kurgan Gringioni says...
today's supercomputers are way, way, way too slow to run the simulation. I'll tell that to some of the guys and gals that make their living simulating hurricanes with supercomputers. I'm sure your opinion will render them invalid. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why don't we nuke Rita?
Stu Fleming wrote:
Meanwhile, Swiss Re's prediction from last year is looking solid... http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0303-07.htm Dumbass, Someone needs to tell the dumbasses at Swiss Re about sunspots. It is incredible how stupid these people are. Someone that is never wrong(*) told me it was all about sunspots. Bob Schwartz (*) At least that they've admitted. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Rita evacuation | Will | General | 53 | September 24th 05 02:04 AM |
Joey. A full confession in RBR in 48 hrs or I drop the Nuke. | crit pro | Racing | 8 | October 3rd 04 05:34 AM |
new st. mary's college moraga, ca observatory 21 pics. this is not a observatory it's a silo for 2 nuke missiles | LOOK OUT FALL OUT | Off Road | 1 | April 17th 04 10:55 PM |