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

[Astro_man92]

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

and i've heard that if oil even a 1/4 inch thick where to blanket the GOM not only would hurricanes weaken there( I guess) but michigan would be a desert after a while

[donsutherland1]

This article states:

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...

Chorin thinks the strategy would have increased the drag in the air and successfully decreased the intensity of the squalls...

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.

In other words, what he has introduced is nothing more than an untested hypothesis. In my view, rather than setting forth a hypothesis, why not conduct some tests and then provide a conclusion.

Personally, I have doubts about whether such an approach would work, not to mention whether it would be a good idea in the first place e.g., the tradeoffs in the form of feedback effects should such an approach even be viable.

[donsutherland1]

On this matter, I have to agree with Galvestongirl. While one could argue on ideological grounds (role of government debate) as to whether the federal government should offer disaster relief--ideological purity on the side that disaster relief is not a government role would demand that no such relief be offered for natural disasters, acts of terrorism, etc.--it is much more problematic to argue that people also should not be able to purchase private coverage in the marketplace or private companies should not be able to offer such coverage.

Furthermore, if one is to propose that certain areas should not be rebuilt e.g., buildings on highly vulnerable barrier islands, then one would, in all fairness, have to advocate that those adopting such a law would provide the displaced persons with fair market value compensation in exchange for their being compelled to leave their homes, land, etc.

[Dean4Storms]

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

Um, a couple of things here on this topic I might point out. These homes along the coast generate billions in property tax revenue because they are valued alot higher than your inland property, you know the taxes that are needed to pave your roads inland as well? The local governments would be slitting their own throats and people would be screaming at them as to why they aren't getting gov't monies no more.

Secondly, if homes were not allowed to rebuild then the coastline would be nothing but high rise condominiums where only tourists could enjoy the views and the beaches, the locals who must exist should have just as much right to live along and enjoy the coast and access to it.


As long as insurers are willing to risk the insurance and wealthy enough people are willing to risk their assets it should not be a concern no more than people building homes in the plains where F-5 Tornado's went through or people rebuilding in earthquake or fire threatend areas either, get REAL!