I fail to understand peoples logic against
Moderator: S2k Moderators
Forum rules
The posts in this forum are NOT official forecasts and should not be used as such. They are just the opinion of the poster and may or may not be backed by sound meteorological data. They are NOT endorsed by any professional institution or STORM2K. For official information, please refer to products from the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service.
I fail to understand peoples logic against
trying to modify a hurricane to a weaker state. For instance lets say a meteor were to hit the Earth with the force of a 100 nuclear bombs. Would we not try to destroy or alter its path? A hurricane has the same amount of force in it.
0 likes
-
- Military Met
- Posts: 4372
- Age: 56
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
- Location: Roan Mountain, TN
Re: I fail to understand peoples logic against
cyclonekiller wrote:trying to modify a hurricane to a weaker state. For instance lets say a meteor were to hit the Earth with the force of a 100 nuclear bombs. Would we not try to destroy or alter its path? A hurricane has the same amount of force in it.
I fail to understand why you never answered any of the questioned posted to you on the previous thread. It's still on this page. Maybe you should bring it to the top and answer them before you start a NEW thread. That would be the polite thing to do.
And to answer your NEW question...even though you have not extended the same courtesy to others...
Hurricanes are a natural phenomena that the earth (God, mother nature...whatever side you lean to...I lean to God) has set up to keep a balance. Asteroids and comets hitting the earth are NOT a natural phenomena that the earth has set up to keep a balance.
Now...take a turn in answering some of other's questions.
edited for spelling.
0 likes
-
- Military Met
- Posts: 4372
- Age: 56
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
- Location: Roan Mountain, TN
cyclonekiller wrote:Sorry Air Force Met somehow I lost the previous post. I just did reply to you in the other thread. Also looking at the moon I'll say you are wrong on that about asteroids. I lean towards God so far that I fall over.
How am I wrong in saying the "asteroids and comets hitting the earth are NOT a natural phenomena that the earth has set up to keep a balance."
Since when did the earth set up an asteroid or comet hit?...and since when does it bring a balance? There is nothing "balancing" about it. I didn't say it wasn't natural...but that it wasn't a naturally occuring earth phenomena that creates a balance.
Hurricanes ARE something the earth has created to keep a balance. Asteroids hit the earth and knock everything out of balance...so it would be totally logical to do everything in our power to keep them away in order to keep the earth in balance.
0 likes
-
- Military Met
- Posts: 4372
- Age: 56
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
- Location: Roan Mountain, TN
Now...since you seem to have lost the original post...it is doubtful you will go over the whole thing again...and considering how indepth all of the previous thread was...I find it hard to believe...but I will bring up some of the other questions since we seem to be having some dificulty with the actual physics of the idea. These are questions I raised before...and I want an answer to them please.
1) Are you the poster from the other forum that was mention...and if not...how do you explain all the coincidences? If you don't remember what they are...go back and read the post I made. There are many. You denied being that poster...but I find it very hard to believe. Please do not lie about this.
2) You said there would be no harm to marine life in the Gulf, since the Gulf temps in winter were already used to being in the low 70's. I made the statement that since you wanted to lower summer time Gulf temps into the mid 70's that this would mean wintertime gulf temps would then be lowered into the upper 50's to low 60's. What will the impacts on marine life be in the Gulf when water temps are lowered to that level (since the only reason winter temps are in the low 70's is because summer temps are in the mid 80's).
3) Who is going to pay for the $35+ trillion dollars it would take to do this project?
4) Since the Gulf temps would be lowered year around, this would mean more heat in the tropics and less heat transported to the mid-lats...thus a greater temp difference...which is the key ingredient for severe weather. Add to this a plan for the Gulf stream and you also icrease this temp contrast for Europe. The question is: What will happen to winters north of 35N and what will happen to the severe weather season given the fact the jet stream energy will increase and the temp delta will also increase (meaning parameters for summer and winter severe weather will increase)?
5) In lowering the Gulf Stream Temperature and the loop current temp, what will be the net result on the THC? and how will this effect European Winters?
Thanks.
1) Are you the poster from the other forum that was mention...and if not...how do you explain all the coincidences? If you don't remember what they are...go back and read the post I made. There are many. You denied being that poster...but I find it very hard to believe. Please do not lie about this.
2) You said there would be no harm to marine life in the Gulf, since the Gulf temps in winter were already used to being in the low 70's. I made the statement that since you wanted to lower summer time Gulf temps into the mid 70's that this would mean wintertime gulf temps would then be lowered into the upper 50's to low 60's. What will the impacts on marine life be in the Gulf when water temps are lowered to that level (since the only reason winter temps are in the low 70's is because summer temps are in the mid 80's).
3) Who is going to pay for the $35+ trillion dollars it would take to do this project?
4) Since the Gulf temps would be lowered year around, this would mean more heat in the tropics and less heat transported to the mid-lats...thus a greater temp difference...which is the key ingredient for severe weather. Add to this a plan for the Gulf stream and you also icrease this temp contrast for Europe. The question is: What will happen to winters north of 35N and what will happen to the severe weather season given the fact the jet stream energy will increase and the temp delta will also increase (meaning parameters for summer and winter severe weather will increase)?
5) In lowering the Gulf Stream Temperature and the loop current temp, what will be the net result on the THC? and how will this effect European Winters?
Thanks.
0 likes
-
- Military Met
- Posts: 4372
- Age: 56
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
- Location: Roan Mountain, TN
cyclonekiller wrote:Ask the people in New Orleans if the Earth was knocked out of balance when Katrina hit? Also, in Cutler Ridge down near Miami when Andrew hit Aug. 24th 1992. Heck ask me I was there when Andrews eye came.
People moved to New orleans...and Miami. Hurricanes have been hitting for thousands of years. Is it Katrina's fault people decided to live in NOLA? Is it Andrew's fault you lived in Florida? Nope.
BTW...nice answer to the questions...as always.
0 likes
For one you would need to build a freaking big pump line. Undering how big the Gulf stream/ocean current is. It would have to pump alot of water. In which this would likely cost trillions. In would take years to build. Not only that it would mess up the Gulf stream...In which killing half the worlds off.
I think this idea will not get out of the box. People in washington see even the start of the building cost of this in they will laugh. People can get away from hurricanes. But hurricanes are here to stay.
I think this idea will not get out of the box. People in washington see even the start of the building cost of this in they will laugh. People can get away from hurricanes. But hurricanes are here to stay.
0 likes
-
- Military Met
- Posts: 4372
- Age: 56
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
- Location: Roan Mountain, TN
Matt-hurricanewatcher wrote:For one you would need to build a freaking big pump line. Undering how big the Gulf stream/ocean current is. It would have to pump alot of water. In which this would likely cost trillions. In would take years to build. Not only that it would mess up the Gulf stream...In which killing half the worlds off.
I think this idea will not get out of the box. People in washington see even the start of the building cost of this in they will laugh. People can get away from hurricanes. But hurricanes are here to stay.
On the other thread...I did a cost estimate of a system for the Gulf alone...it was 7 million miles of aluminum pipes at a coast of at least 34 trillion...in material...that does not include engineering or labor....and that is assuming it would work and it would be enough to do it.
0 likes
- JamesFromMaine2
- Category 4
- Posts: 989
- Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:38 am
- Location: Portland Maine USA
- Contact:
JamesFromMaine2 wrote:cyclonekiller wrote:James wrote:So, the cost (both financial and natural) would massively outweigh any imagined benefit from the idea?
That is his cost not mine. Mine Is ten billion.
Ok Cyclone how would you do it with ten billion when the metal alone is like 50 times that?
Well actually the tunnels pay for themselves after five years since they generate 75,000 MWs of electricity for 22,000,000 people,also.
0 likes
-
- Military Met
- Posts: 4372
- Age: 56
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
- Location: Roan Mountain, TN
cyclonekiller wrote:James wrote:So, the cost (both financial and natural) would massively outweigh any imagined benefit from the idea?
That is his cost not mine. Mine Is ten billion.
10 Billion?
OK..Sell it. Make a proposal where the numbers fit. List the materials.
You can't because you have not idea what you are talking about. You can barely build an aircraft carrier for 10 B.
List it. LIst the lbs...miles....feet. Cost.
Please. You just show your ignorance. I think you wnjoy it. Wait until you get into college...it'll be fun!.
0 likes
-
- Military Met
- Posts: 4372
- Age: 56
- Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
- Location: Roan Mountain, TN
Air Force Met wrote:cyclonekiller wrote:Well actually the tunnels pay for themselves after five years since they generate 75,000 MWs of electricity for 22,000,000 people,also.
That did not answer the question at all. Why? Because you can't.
So you don't think the tunnels can generate electricity at all?
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Steve H. and 74 guests