Article in The Economist on hurricane suppression

[jrod]

People with these claims can already bank off of it. There are plenty of people in Florida willing to give a lot of money in the name of hurricane control, none of them with a clue of the basics of meteorology. Im sure many can be led to believe that a fleet of old cropdusters could nix a hurricane.

[kevin]

That hurricanes transfer heat from the equator to the poles is undeniable. What is questionable (to my mind so far) is whether they are a major factor in heat exchange.

For instance, the south atlantic does not have hurricanes (once in a while maybe). Yet heat does disperse.

The northern atlantic does not have hurricanes from late November till early July usually. Yet heat does disperse.

[Novacane]

Gee folks, thanks for all the great insights on my post. Like most of you, I remain skeptical that such a plan might work, but it's hard for me to rule it out entirely.

I'm sorry I wasn't able to post the picture that accompanied the article, because the illustration showed a HUGE barge, with a footprint the size of maybe 8-10 aircraft carriers, with a large number of jet engines built into it, and towed by something the size of a destroyer. If one was able to construct a flotilla of such barges and they were able to work the waters in front of an approaching cane for many hours before it made landfall, it seems at least conceivable to me that it might lower SSTs by a couple of degrees.

I'm not saying this is even feasible. I can imagine all sorts of challenges associated with building and housing such a flotilla, to say nothing of the costs, which I'm guessing would have to be a damned sight more expensive than the billion dollars this scientist claims in the article. However, suppose for a minute that it could be done. One would then have to ask: should it be done, and if so, under what circumstances?

Should it be done? A couple of you suggested that we ought not mess with the forces of nature. I would argue that we mess with nature all the time already. Beach restoration projects, levees along rivers, fighting wildfires that approach populated areas, and avalanche abatement efforts, are but a few examples. Granted, none of these are on the same scale as trying to thwart a hurricane, but all have a purpose--to preserve life and property from nature's ravages. Why shouldn't an effort to mitigate the damage caused by a huge hurricane be at least worthy of consideration? Given the exponential increase in damage caused the stronger a storm becomes, the number of lives saved and property preserved from even a modest weakening of a hurricane could be significant, particulary when one is talking about a Cat 4 or 5.

Southern Wx also noted that such a scheme would disrupt the heat re-distribution effects that 'canes provide. That's a valid concern also. But most hurricanes don't hit land and so it seems doubtful that this effort would be attempted at all for such storms. Plus, even in those cases where it was used, it's hard to imagine that the storm would dissipate entirely; more likely it would merely be weakened, thus providing at least some heat re-distribution benefit. Furthermore, there are many other natural forces, such as the Gulf Stream, that move heat from the equator to the poles.

As to the question of when it might be used, or even effective, I have a couple of thoughts here as well. (Not saying they're right, of course). IF such an endeavor could indeed drop SSTs slightly, this scheme might have a weakening effect on really strong 'canes. I've heard Joe B. numerous times compare really strong storms to top athletes performing at their peak. Everything has to be just right for an athlete or a storm to stay at peak. Even the slightest disruptive event will cause each to experience a notable drop in performance. Such slight disruptions might not have much of an impact on a good-but-not-great athlete's performance or that of a TS or Cat 1/2. So my thinking is that this or any other attempt to disrupt a hurricane would probably have a noticeable effect on only the strongest storms. Of course, those are the ones that create the most havoc.

As I said when I started this way-too-long post, I am skeptical that this idea is feasible, much less practical to implement, but it did capture my imagination. I do recognize and value your reactions, especially in those instances when you shared your reasoning behind them. If you've read this far, thanks for putting up with my admittedly devil's advocate position. Your comments are welcome.