Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/28/2005 7:22:53 AM EDT
Is there any lasting effects to the water? I know there would be atmospheric fall out but could someone tell me what the longterm effects would be to an ocean or large lake?

Would a small nuclear bomb dissipate a hurricane?
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:33:13 AM EDT
Radiation is bad mmmkk

An iradiated hurrican is worse

Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:38:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FunYun1983:
Radiation is bad mmmkk

An iradiated hurrican is worse




Wasn't that a Sci=fi channel movie?
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:38:46 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Pangea:
Is there any lasting effects to the water? I know there would be atmospheric fall out but could someone tell me what the longterm effects would be to an ocean or large lake?



We did it in the ocean at Bikini Atoll. What makes you think a large lake would even be there after a detonation?


Would a small nuclear bomb dissipate a hurricane?


I have read that it would. Can't remember where, but it seems logical. Of course, there are various issues with trying it. I can't imagine that people would accept that method of weather control.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:41:09 AM EDT
It might make it stronger, a hurricane is just a water/heat pump, now add heat from the nuke... it could happen.

thinnnkkk abbboutit!
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:41:39 AM EDT

www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html

Subject: C5c) Why don't we try to destroy tropical cyclones by nuking them ?

During each hurricane season, there always appear suggestions that one should simply use nuclear weapons to try and destroy the storms. Apart from the fact that this might not even alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea.

Now for a more rigorous scientific explanation of why this would not be an effective hurricane modification technique. The main difficulty with using explosives to modify hurricanes is the amount of energy required. A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20x1013 watts and converts less than 10% of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind. The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes. According to the 1993 World Almanac, the entire human race used energy at a rate of 1013 watts in 1990, a rate less than 20% of the power of a hurricane.

If we think about mechanical energy, the energy at humanity's disposal is closer to the storm's, but the task of focusing even half of the energy on a spot in the middle of a remote ocean would still be formidable. Brute force interference with hurricanes doesn't seem promising.

In addition, an explosive, even a nuclear explosive, produces a shock wave, or pulse of high pressure, that propagates away from the site of the explosion somewhat faster than the speed of sound. Such an event doesn't raise the barometric pressure after the shock has passed because barometric pressure in the atmosphere reflects the weight of the air above the ground. For normal atmospheric pressure, there are about ten metric tons (1000 kilograms per ton) of air bearing down on each square meter of surface. In the strongest hurricanes there are nine. To change a Category 5 hurricane into a Category 2 hurricane you would have to add about a half ton of air for each square meter inside the eye, or a total of a bit more than half a billion (500,000,000) tons for a 20 km radius eye. It's difficult to envision a practical way of moving that much air around.

Attacking weak tropical waves or depressions before they have a chance to grow into hurricanes isn't promising either. About 80 of these disturbances form every year in the Atlantic basin, but only about 5 become hurricanes in a typical year. There is no way to tell in advance which ones will develop. If the energy released in a tropical disturbance were only 10% of that released in a hurricane, it's still a lot of power, so that the hurricane police would need to dim the whole world's lights many times a year.

Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:45:14 AM EDT
Hey, can't a guy even ax a stupid question without getting beatup by the geniuses here!

Just for that, I'll save my nuke for the Fourth of July and not invite any of you poo poo faces.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:49:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Pangea:
Hey, can't a guy even ax a stupid question without getting beatup by the geniuses here!

Just for that, I'll save my nuke for the Fourth of July and not invite any of you poo poo faces.



Just be sure to post location and time.....so we can get the hell away.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:54:53 AM EDT
Not you, Pangea, but some folks around here overestimate the effects of nuclear detonation to an almost ridiculous degree.

Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:54:59 AM EDT
Hey, just remember: There are no stupid questions. Only stupid people.

(I was just wondering earlier if it was possible to, say, tow a few icebergs down there and let them melt in a pattern to deflect hurricanes away from the mainland, or even use space-based mirrors to warm water up and guide hurricanes away... but there would likely be some long term damage I hadn't thought of...)
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 7:55:34 AM EDT


read the label :)
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 8:03:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/28/2005 8:04:11 AM EDT by mjohn3006]
A nuke about 2000 feet under the surface would be an interesting sight. Can you say surfs up?

oh..new term. Aqua-nuke
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 8:03:59 AM EDT
On a serious note: I have always heard that if we start changing the hurricanes paths, it would cause sever damage to the earths ecosystem. But that could all me pinko/commie/peta/liberal BS.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 8:05:03 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mjohn3006:
A nuke about 2000 feet under the surface would be an interesting sight. Can you say surfs up?

oh..new term. Aqua-nuke



Hey you might be on to somthing there... that would bring cold water to the surface.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 8:15:06 AM EDT

Hey you might be on to somthing there... that would bring cold water to the surface.


During the WIGWAM tests, it actually brought a lot of hot water to the surface.

When the pressure bubble reaches it's actual size at depth (comparatively small), the surrounding water pressure is, by definition, higher than the the outgoing pressure. This pressure creates condensation as the bubble contracts and rises. The resultant (hot) water trails this pear shaped bubble to the surface.
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 8:15:56 AM EDT
nukes in salt water are very very bad... they irradiate all the salt....
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 11:18:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By GC456:
On a serious note: I have always heard that if we start changing the hurricanes paths, it would cause sever damage to the earths ecosystem. But that could all me pinko/commie/peta/liberal BS.



If you ever wondered why civilization didn't seem to progress as rapidly in North America as it did in Europe, Asia, and even Central/South America, I think you can look at the natural disasters that tend to hit NA. Hurricaines batter the gulf and East coasts where you would expect civilizations to try and build major cities (we did...), Earthquakes nail the West coast frequently, multi-year droughts hit the midwest, and if that Yellowstone Caldera is actually a repeat performer...

Jim
Link Posted: 8/28/2005 11:29:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:

Originally Posted By GC456:
On a serious note: I have always heard that if we start changing the hurricanes paths, it would cause sever damage to the earths ecosystem. But that could all me pinko/commie/peta/liberal BS.



If you ever wondered why civilization didn't seem to progress as rapidly in North America as it did in Europe, Asia, and even Central/South America, I think you can look at the natural disasters that tend to hit NA. Hurricaines batter the gulf and East coasts where you would expect civilizations to try and build major cities (we did...), Earthquakes nail the West coast frequently, multi-year droughts hit the midwest, and if that Yellowstone Caldera is actually a repeat performer...

Jim



There were major cities in NA before the white people arrived. The mound builders.

Earthquakes on the west coast are a very occasional nuisance. Nothing that would stop civilization by any means. With 50+ years in CA, I have been through exactly one that disturbed my life for more than a few minutes. The snowstorms of Europe would have a worse effect on civilization.

The midwest had enough water that there were bison running around in herds that numbered in the millions.

I don't think I buy your theory.

Top Top