Hmm, this sounds like Dyn-o-Mat might have

[wxcrazytwo]

Done some of the thoughts in this article or can it be possible?

Sailors who traditionally dumped barrels of oil into the sea to calm stormy waters may have been on to something, a new study suggests. The old practice reduces wind speeds in tropical hurricanes by damping ocean spray, according to a new mathematical “sandwich model”.

As hurricane winds kick up ocean waves, large water droplets become suspended in the air. This cloud of spray can be treated mathematically as a third fluid sandwiched between the air and sea. “Our calculations show that drops in the spray decrease turbulence and reduce friction, allowing for far greater wind speeds – sometimes eight times as much,” explains researcher Alexandre Chorin at the University of California at Berkeley, US.

He believes the findings shed light on an age-old sea ritual. “Ancient mariners poured oil on troubled waters – hence the expression – but it was never very clear what this accomplished,” says Chorin. Since oil inhibits the formation of drops, Chorin thinks the strategy would have increased the drag in the air and successfully decreased the intensity of the squalls.

Preventing hurricanes
The researchers suggest that, during a tropical storm, aeroplanes could deliver harmless surfactants to the ocean surface – reducing surface tension in water and stopping droplets from forming – perhaps preventing a hurricane developing.

But some climate physicists remain unconvinced. “I am very doubtful about this approach,” says Julian Hunt at University College London, UK. He has studied turbulence both theoretically and in the laboratory and thinks that the high wind speeds are caused by an entirely different mechanism.

In a paper submitted this month to the Journal of Fluid Dynamics, Hunt suggests that variations in the turbulence between different regions of the hurricane cause sharp jumps in wind speed.

Chorin stresses that his team has not carried out experimental tests on the application of this work with tropical storms, but feels that it could be explored in the future.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7726&feedId=online-news_rss091

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Lets just distory everything. This is very sad I wish this guy would be locked up in the key thown into the trash.

[wxmann_91]

IMHO these people shouldn't think about killing hurricanes (after all, they act as air conditioning, cooling the tropics and warming the poles), instead, these people should think about steering them away from land. That would allow the hurricanes to do their things and us to do our things.

[Derek Ortt]

turning them away from land is just as foolish as is killing them

How about not building on the coast? Once a home is destroyed, why doesn't the gov't prohibit furutre contsruction? But that would make too much sense

[EDR1222]

Lets just distory everything. This is very sad I wish this guy would be locked up in the key thown into the trash.

I second that!

[ericinmia]

turning them away from land is just as foolish as is killing them

How about not building on the coast? Once a home is destroyed, why doesn't the gov't prohibit furutre contsruction? But that would make too much sense

Exactly why i think NO-ONE on the coast should be allowed to get insurance, or FEMA aid, or anything else.

You were afluent and stupid enough to build within feet of the water, in a very hurricane prone area. Your Fault! Not mine.... or my insurance rates inland.
-Eric

[wxcrazytwo]

turning them away from land is just as foolish as is killing them

How about not building on the coast? Once a home is destroyed, why doesn't the gov't prohibit furutre contsruction? But that would make too much sense

Hokey pokey. Derek, what you don't realize is we as humans are like viruses spreading and occupying wherever we can. Hurricanes are just natures way of cleansing the climo and we just happened to be in its way. I say build what you want and where you want, but don't bi*** when it gets destroyed...

[mike18xx]

Aw, c'mon; you're missing out on the chance to kick-start the evolution of an entirely new strain of oceanic oil-eating bacteria!

[themusk]

IMHO these people shouldn't think about killing hurricanes (after all, they act as air conditioning, cooling the tropics and warming the poles), instead, these people should think about steering them away from land. That would allow the hurricanes to do their things and us to do our things.

There's a third way, and it's right here, now, in front of our noses. It's called mitigation. We can build sturdy structures in good locations with hurricanes in mind, and learn to live with nature.

Making such changes on a widespread basis would require the concerted effort of the citizenry, government, and private industry. It would involve sacrifices in the beginning but in the end would save countless millions of dollars as well as lives.

But the will to do what it takes -- a coordinated package of much stricter building codes and zoning regulations, generous tax breaks, loans, and government subsidies for persons who need a hand upgrading their homes or building anew, increased production of essential building materials to meet the demand, and an insurance industry offering up reasonable and appropriate "carrots" and "sticks" to homeowners -- just isn't there at the moment. A few more hurricanes, though, and the mood may change.

Such a coordinated public/private effort would be, admittedly, a wonder of the 21st century. The only comparable historical effort that I know of would be the rebuilding of the city of Chicago in brick after the Chicago Fire.

[Brent]

turning them away from land is just as foolish as is killing them

How about not building on the coast? Once a home is destroyed, why doesn't the gov't prohibit furutre contsruction? But that would make too much sense

Hokey pokey. Derek, what you don't realize is we as humans are like viruses spreading and occupying wherever we can. Hurricanes are just natures way of cleansing the climo and we just happened to be in its way. I say build what you want and where you want, but don't bi*** when it gets destroyed...

I agree with that...

[Galvestongirl]

turning them away from land is just as foolish as is killing them

How about not building on the coast? Once a home is destroyed, why doesn't the gov't prohibit furutre contsruction? But that would make too much sense

Exactly why i think NO-ONE on the coast should be allowed to get insurance, or FEMA aid, or anything else.

You were afluent and stupid enough to build within feet of the water, in a very hurricane prone area. Your Fault! Not mine.... or my insurance rates inland.
-Eric

Sorry, I have to disagree, I personally didnt choose to build on the coast, my family has lived here for generations, the choice was not mine. I could not move because I have never had any money to relocate, again not my choice. Until you have walked in someone elses shoes, you cannot make a judgement of the population overall. As far as insurance goes....then lets not insure those who suffer tornados or anyother natural disaster. I will not argue this, i am just stating my opinion.

[Windy]

Lets just distory everything. This is very sad I wish this guy would be locked up in the key thown into the trash.

What the heck are you talking about? Are we reading the same article?

[HurricaneBill]

turning them away from land is just as foolish as is killing them

Don't some places actually depend on rainfall from tropical cyclones?

Yes, hurricanes are destructive, but we NEED them.

[Frank2]

It seems that every hurricane season the media writes about someone who wants to modifiy hurricanes, but the truth is that the last time it was even attempted in this country was way back in 1980.

There were several reasons NOAA abandoned the idea at that time - mainly, because the results were inconclusive, expensive, and most of all too political, when it came to possible liability that the U.S. Government would have to assume if an experiment did not go well and caused a hurricane to increase in intensity.

As for the old story of emptying barrels of oil into the sea, that perhaps was for another reason (fishing related, perhaps - oily water causes fish to behave a certain way), since a few dozen barrels of oil used to modify the weather would be similar to using a eyedropper of blue dye to color an entire olympic-sized swimming pool.

The dyn-o-mat issue has been mentioned the past 3 or 4 seasons, but, current government restrictions on spraying anything into the air are very tight, and, it's unlikely that this individual would ever get approval for anything of this magnitude. Last summer the media had falsely reported that this individual was about to use several large aircraft to test spray this product, but again, nothing was ever heard about this so-called "experiement" - apparently the only thing ocean-related about this topic is that it's another red herring of a story.

Frank2

[BocaGirl]

IMHO these people shouldn't think about killing hurricanes (after all, they act as air conditioning, cooling the tropics and warming the poles), instead, these people should think about steering them away from land. That would allow the hurricanes to do their things and us to do our things.

There's a third way, and it's right here, now, in front of our noses. It's called mitigation. We can build sturdy structures in good locations with hurricanes in mind, and learn to live with nature.

Your entire post was so thought-provoking. I really like the concept.

BocaGirl
Barbara

[Pebbles]

There's a third way, and it's right here, now, in front of our noses. It's called mitigation. We can build sturdy structures in good locations with hurricanes in mind, and learn to live with nature.

Making such changes on a widespread basis would require the concerted effort of the citizenry, government, and private industry. It would involve sacrifices in the beginning but in the end would save countless millions of dollars as well as lives.

But the will to do what it takes -- a coordinated package of much stricter building codes and zoning regulations, generous tax breaks, loans, and government subsidies for persons who need a hand upgrading their homes or building anew, increased production of essential building materials to meet the demand, and an insurance industry offering up reasonable and appropriate "carrots" and "sticks" to homeowners -- just isn't there at the moment. A few more hurricanes, though, and the mood may change.

Such a coordinated public/private effort would be, admittedly, a wonder of the 21st century. The only comparable historical effort that I know of would be the rebuilding of the city of Chicago in brick after the Chicago Fire.

This is a fantastic post! It's such a constructive post that seriously needs more discussion and thought. It's the most realistic approach I've seen offered and worded in a way that everyone can understand and should consider. With technology we have become so use to changing and controlling our environment... I think we need to get back to basics and learn to adapt to our environment instead.

[timNms]

turning them away from land is just as foolish as is killing them

How about not building on the coast? Once a home is destroyed, why doesn't the gov't prohibit furutre contsruction? But that would make too much sense

Derek, In that case, then the government would have to prohibit people from rebuilding in tornado alley after their homes were destroyed...or prohibit people from rebuilding in earthquake prone areas....or prohibit people from rebuilding in forrest fire prone areas....or prohibit people from rebuilding in landslide prone areas or .......

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Personally, I don't like the idea of the government telling me where I can or cannot build. If I own the land, I should be able to build a home on it if I choose to do so, even if that land is along the coastline. One solution (as mentioned by someone else) is to have stricter building codes and enforce those codes.

Personally, I don't have a desire to live on or near the coastline. But I don't think it fair to say that no one has a right to do so. At my location, I can enjoy the beauty of nature (hurricanes, tropical storms, etc) from a safe distance lol. (and not have to go through the hassle of boarding up and evacuating.)

[Rainband]

turning them away from land is just as foolish as is killing them

How about not building on the coast? Once a home is destroyed, why doesn't the gov't prohibit furutre contsruction? But that would make too much sense

about as much sense as not building homes in California because of earthquakes or in Tornado alley. get real. Nobody can predict mother nature and BTW inland flooding from Tropical cyclones is sometimes even more devastating...so where do you propose the line is drawn???

[Rainband]

turning them away from land is just as foolish as is killing them

How about not building on the coast? Once a home is destroyed, why doesn't the gov't prohibit furutre contsruction? But that would make too much sense

Derek, In that case, then the government would have to prohibit people from rebuilding in tornado alley after their homes were destroyed...or prohibit people from rebuilding in earthquake prone areas....or prohibit people from rebuilding in forrest fire prone areas....or prohibit people from rebuilding in landslide prone areas or .......

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. Personally, I don't like the idea of the government telling me where I can or cannot build. If I own the land, I should be able to build a home on it if I choose to do so, even if that land is along the coastline. One solution (as mentioned by someone else) is to have stricter building codes and enforce those codes.

Personally, I don't have a desire to live on or near the coastline. But I don't think it fair to say that no one has a right to do so. At my location, I can enjoy the beauty of nature (hurricanes, tropical storms, etc) from a safe distance lol. (and not have to go through the hassle of boarding up and evacuating.)

LOL. Great minds think alike. I took too long to post

[cinlfla]

How about not building on the coast? Once a home is destroyed, why doesn't the gov't prohibit furutre contsruction? But that would make too much sense

No, I want to live up north where I can get snowed in and drive on black ice and get stuck in the snow and freeze my tushy off, PALEEZE
No thank you!!!! I'll take my chances down here