I fail to understand peoples logic against

This is the general tropical discussion area. Anyone can take their shot at predicting a storms path.

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.

Help Support Storm2K
Message
Author
cyclonekiller

I fail to understand peoples logic against

#1 Postby cyclonekiller » Mon Dec 05, 2005 8:46 am

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   

Air Force Met
Military Met
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

#2 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:35 am

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   

cyclonekiller

#3 Postby cyclonekiller » Mon Dec 05, 2005 12:45 pm

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.
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#4 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:07 pm

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   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#5 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:26 pm

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.
0 likes   

cyclonekiller

#6 Postby cyclonekiller » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:28 pm

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.
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#7 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 05, 2005 1:47 pm

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   

Matt-hurricanewatcher

#8 Postby Matt-hurricanewatcher » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:15 pm

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.
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#9 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:27 pm

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   

User avatar
James
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:29 am
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Contact:

#10 Postby James » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:39 pm

So, the cost (both financial and natural) would massively outweigh any imagined benefit from the idea?
0 likes   

cyclonekiller

#11 Postby cyclonekiller » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:45 pm

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.
0 likes   

User avatar
JamesFromMaine2
Category 4
Category 4
Posts: 989
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 1:38 am
Location: Portland Maine USA
Contact:

#12 Postby JamesFromMaine2 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:49 pm

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?
0 likes   

Matt-hurricanewatcher

#13 Postby Matt-hurricanewatcher » Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:50 pm

1# It is to risky you will get no support in Washington.
2# It cost alot more then you can think to build a pump line big enough to do it.
3# It will take thousands of workers.
0 likes   

cyclonekiller

#14 Postby cyclonekiller » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:11 pm

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   

User avatar
James
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:29 am
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Contact:

#15 Postby James » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:15 pm

Well yes, in theory, but what about the maintenance costs? A system like the one you propose cannot just be left to its own devices. Keeping it up and running would probably cost the same amount over again.
0 likes   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#16 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:31 pm

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   

Air Force Met
Military Met
Military Met
Posts: 4372
Age: 56
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2003 9:30 am
Location: Roan Mountain, TN

#17 Postby Air Force Met » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:32 pm

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.
0 likes   

cyclonekiller

#18 Postby cyclonekiller » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:37 pm

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   

DoctorHurricane2003

#19 Postby DoctorHurricane2003 » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:39 pm

As much as I don't want to feed the troll, remember...water is being pumped into this....something has to provide for that electricity, right? Water doesn't pump itself.

I'm just waiting for this guy's lollercoaster of a 'solar shade theory' to weaken hurricanes to pop up. :roll:
0 likes   

User avatar
James
Category 5
Category 5
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:29 am
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Contact:

#20 Postby James » Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:40 pm

I'm inclined once again to agree. You can't just quote figures here there and everywhere and say that's all the answer that is needed.

That's what politicians do. :P
0 likes   


Return to “Talkin' Tropics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests