NOAA to American public: No, we are not going to just nuke the storms


65 Responses to “NOAA to American public: No, we are not going to just nuke the storms”

  1. Michael Polo says:

    I’d be more curious to hear wacky futuristic ways of harnessing the storms, rather than blowing them up.

    How about taking out a bunch of aircraft carriers, hooking them up to some sort floating turbine system and charging massive batteries by removing the kinetic energy out of the storm?

    • acerplatanoides says:

      Alternately, we could step away from the Michael Bay movie.

    • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

      Or we could abandon our belief that we have a god given right to build 5 inches from the water everywhere.

      • Itsumishi says:

        Yes exactly! We should abandon all the cities we’ve built near the ocean. Who cares that they’ve existed hundreds of years?

        Oh and people that live on islands, don’t get me started on people that live on islands!

        • Ito Kagehisa says:

           Way to exclude the middle, Itsu-san.

        • acerplatanoides says:

          “Who cares that they’ve existed hundreds of years?”

          A single species. 

          • Itsumishi says:

            I’m not even sure what this is trying to say. We’re screwing up the planet by building near the ocean and that’s bad? We’re harming other species by building near the ocean? We shouldn’t consider humans more than any other species? What is the point?

          • Brad Gall says:

            Commerce is the point. The cheapest and most efficient way to get things form A to B is by water.Also people who live by the sea learn that eating sea-life is awesome.

          • acerplatanoides says:

             The only species in the world that cares if we live or die is us. The world could give a toss what has existed for hundreds of solar cycles.

      • Antinous / Moderator says:

        I’ll just repeat this comment from the other thread: People settle on the coasts because the sea is an important commerce route, fishing is a major industry, the climate is on the whole actually milder than inland, etc.

        • Itsumishi says:

          Exactly, humans not only have settled along the coasts for a long time because it was necessary then, but it is also necessary now.

          We can settle further inland and perhaps we’ll avoid some of the worst affects from tropical storms. But what about other disasters Should we also avoid mountains for fear of avalanches and landslides? All forests for fear of fires? Areas prone to tornadoes? Drought? River flooding?

          Where is left that is safe to settle following this logic?

          • Antinous / Moderator says:

            Nowhere, and most of that nowhere doesn’t have enough water to support a large population.

          • acerplatanoides says:

            Nowhere is safe from ourselves.

          • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

            There are some areas that are extremely vulnerable on a relatively frequent basis.  It is a gray area where you have to evaluate risk.  No, you can’t stop building in all of CA because of earthquakes but maybe you shouldn’t build right on top of a major active known fault line?  Or don’t build at the top of an unstable hill?  That still leaves plenty of other choices.

          • Itsumishi says:

            Except Mark, that doesn’t leave as much room as you claim. 

            Japan for example, is pretty much all major faultline. Obviously this has consequences sometimes, but so does trying to relocate 127million people. 

            Like wise for islanders, and in general developing nations.

            In 2009, huge portions of my state went up in flames, including my home town. Hundreds of people died, thousands lost their homes. Some towns were very nearly wiped out completely. A lot of people chose to leave these towns afterwards. A lot did not, for those people, the history, their livelihoods, their affiliation with the land, etc; these things were worth the risk of another fire. Besides, the next fire could take out a completely different town, or even hit the city. Meanwhile, cities like NYC have hundreds of years worth of built infrastructure, culture and history.

        • SomeGuyNamedMark says:

          Everyone immediately jumps to the extreme “Well we can’t build near the water!?”.  No, how about building maybe a half mile or mile inland in vulnerable areas and only have port structures closer to the water?  Don’t build on sandbars, etc.  I never said don’t build near the ocean.

    • Ito Kagehisa says:

      I have this image in my head of dozens of aircraft carriers, chained together like a giant pinwheel, being spun around the storm center like the ty-dee-bol man’s yacht going down the toilet.

      This idea needs serious consideration, but frankly I am sold already.

  2. michael b says:

    As an American who likes to watch things blow up I don’t have any problems with trying, to hell with the consequences.  

  3. Steve Easterbrook says:

    Well the scientists at Los Alamos were playing with ideas like this in the late 1940′s. They didn’t manage to get anywhere with weather modification, but they did manage to get the US army to part with a huge chunk of money to develop the first numerical weather forecasting models. So I guess useful stuff can come out of playing with stupid ideas. For a history read, James Fleming’s book “Fixing the Sky”:
    It’s a brilliant read, and very relevant to challenges such as climate modification and geoengineering.

    • jandrese says:

      Now I’m imagining the scientists pitching the idea for building a weather forecasting service to the army and getting a “boooor-ing!” from the General.  Then they go talk about blowing up storms with nukes and suddenly the army can’t toss enough money at those scientists.

  4. DAB says:

    Like trying to stop a fan throwing turds at it.

  5. Just_Ok says:

    Have the politicians face the wind and start talking. Problem would be getting them to stop talking.

  6. Ramone says:

    Then again, an atomic hurricane now and then can be great for parties.

  7. acerplatanoides says:

     Don’t hurricanes feed on heat, especially in the form of vaporized water?

    • xzzy says:

      So I think what you’re saying is that we should douse hurricanes with liquid nitrogen. Using blimps, somehow.

      That might be more fun to watch than an explosion, if you can get enough LN2. 

  8. Tim Cameron says:

    What about tornadoes? Would it work with tornadoes? How about dust devils? El Nino?

  9. mypalmike says:

    Just more proof that big government can’t do anything right.

  10. LikesTurtles says:

    Joe Sixpack on Monday: “Ain’t no such thing as climate change. Rush says it’s arrogant to think humans can mess with the earth.”

    Joe Sixpack  on Tuesday: “The government could have stopped the hurricane with a nuclear bomb but they wanted Fartbongo to look like he done did something presidential.”

  11. Finnagain says:

    I don’t care for NOAA’s defeatist attitude here. C’mon! Give it a shot at least.

  12. Trying to stop a hurricane with nuclear weapons is dumb…
    It’s better to just shoot at it with guns

  13. Henry Pootel says:

    Then again there’s the question of what the modification of a major weather system would do to climate.  

    If you even could eliminate a hurricane, you’re going to have a repercussion somewhere along the line.  Call it the Mothera butterfly wing effect perhaps.

  14. SomeGuyNamedMark says:

    Maybe we can stop plate tectonics with nukes too

    • Henry Pootel says:

      Actually, the most effective use of nukes to lessen the impact of natural disasters on humanity would be to just kill off the human race with them.

  15. xtophr says:

    Hurricanes in the Atlantic begin as hot winds over the Sahara. Just use nuclear (or solar) power to desalinate seawater and irrigate all of North Africa. Of course, if you do that, the lack of Saharan mineral dust will probably kill major ecosystems throughout the Americas, but whatevs – no more flooding here! Amirite?

    • Marios P. says:

      NUKE sahara to turn it to glass and then worry no more about hot winds. It will also reflect more energy back to space and help reduce the overall heat there !

  16. travtastic says:

    That’s just stupid. The proper course of action is to use precision meteorite impacts.

  17. During the oil spill in the Gulf, Chris Matthews of MSNBC fame would NOT stop pushing his idea of sinking an old submarine or large ship onto the well head.  I felt sad for the interviewees who had to respond.

  18. jimdigritz says:

    “I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure!”

  19. Marios P. says:

    I think there is an author, Jack London or Jules Verne, I think, who describe a pacific cyclone that they avoided by firing the cannon of the ship while caught in it.
    Is that story based on facts or just fiction?

  20. benher says:

    Such an infantile country should not be wielding nuclear power.

Leave a Reply