Dirty Donald suggests we NUKE hurricanes??

That's laughable....Obama wouldn't be that proactive.

 

You don't get significant radioactive fallout from airbursts. When will you people figure that out.

And given that ships avoid hurricanes whenever possible and given that one presumes some kind of warning would be issued well before a nuclear device was detonated, then the issue of ships nearby is a nonstarter.

 

Obama is far better educated and intelligent than Trump ..

 

You are incorrect.

Below is the first paragraph of the article. And as you see...the idea IS in fact dismissed outright

"One idea that rears its head almost every hurricane season recently is the notion of bombing a hurricane into submission. The theory goes that the energy released by a nuclear bomb detonated just above and ahead of the eye of a storm would heat the cooler air there, disrupting the storm's convection current.
Unfortunately, this idea, which has been around in some form since the 1960s, wouldn't work."

Clearly it's not scientists that the paragraph is referring to. Clearly it refers to lay people who are utterly clueless about science who mention the idea every hurricane season. Try to use a little bit of critical thinking.

 

But they discussed it. They did not say it was a stupid idea. They even put enough thought into to consider what would happen during the developing stages.

By the way, they were not saying it was unfortunate that it was discussed. They were saying that is unfortunate that it would not work.

 

I don't know...they both have Ivy league educations.

But their education levels aren't really the point of discussion.

 

Who's "they"? The article is about an explanation by Chris Landsea about how it wouldn't work. The article does not mention anything about scientists sitting around discussing the possibility of using nukes on a hurricane.
Yes, I know the author (not "they") writes that it's unfortunate it wouldn't work.

 

It would take a scientist to discuss the reasons why it would not work during the developing stages. That is not common knowledge.

Also, I mentioned attending class at the University of Hawaii in the early 1960s. It was brought up in a class on tropical meteorology and discussed. This discussion was among students with a thorough understanding of tropical meteorology.

 

I have a couple of ICBM friends. One was famous for non pc one liners. We were driving through ENMU campus and saw a very beautiful woman pushing a stroller. He leaned out of his Jeep as he drove by and said “How about you and me go half and half on another?”

The other guy was in Arkansas when the warhead blew off of a missile because someone dropped a wrench.

 

Right....hence Landsea being quoted explaining why it wouldn't work. The article is explaining to lay people why such a suggestion wouldn't work. Scientists know it wouldn't work.

 

*

Fallout is not produced by he actual nuclear explosion. There is a radiation pulse but that is not fallout and it is very short lived.

 

Scientists after some study know why it would not work. Scientists have more sense than to just dismiss ideas out of hand. Several scenarios were studied by scientists before dismissing it. First of all putting the bomb in front of the storm to cut off the influx of cooler air and using it during the formative stages. They tried things that seemed even less likely to work. They tried seeding the storm with a few hundred pounds of silver iodide.

 

Scientists know enough that radiation in the air would not be a good thing. Hell, anyone with any common sense knows this.

 

Yep, the article says the main problem is the energy, which I explained in a back-of-the envelope calculation based on a 5 min google search in a post above. And I am not a meteorologist.

Of course, to someone like Trump, who sees the world through the money lens only, this all means nothing.

 

Is anyone surprised to hear that the Dems are soft on Hurricanes? I'm not....I guess they'll try anything to appeal to the Miami voters.....

 

That actually apparently caused a hurricane to change course. For the worse. The U.S. seeded the eye wall of a hurricane that was well out to sea in the Atlantic back in the 1960s IIRC. After the seeding, the hurricane swung around fully 90 degrees and came ashore. It caused considerable damage. After that the U.S. backed off trying to manipulate hurricanes.

Project Cirrus[edit]
Project Cirrus was the first attempt to modify a hurricane. It was a collaboration of the General Electric Corporation, the US Army Signal Corps, the Office of Naval Research, and the US Air Force.[1] After several preparations, and initial skepticism by government scientists,[6] the first attempt to modify a hurricane began on October 13, 1947 on a hurricane that was heading west to east and out to sea.[5]

An airplane flew along the rainbands of the hurricane, and dropped nearly 180 pounds (82 kilograms) of crushed dry ice into the clouds.[1] The crew reported "Pronounced modification of the cloud deck seeded".[5] It is not known if that was due to the seeding. Next, the hurricane changed direction and made landfall near Savannah, Georgia. The public blamed the seeding, and Irving Langmuir claimed that the reversal had been caused by human intervention.[6] Cirrus was canceled,[5] and lawsuits were threatened. Only the fact that a system in 1906 had taken a similar path, as well as evidence showing that the storm had already begun to turn when seeding began, ended the litigation.[5] This disaster set back the cause of seeding hurricanes for eleven years.

At first the seeding was officially denied and it took years before the government admitted it. According to the Sept. 12, 1965 edition of the Fort Lauderdale News and Sun-Sentinel, in 1947 a hurricane "went whacky" and "Twelve years later it was admitted the storm had in fact been seeded."[7]

 

LOL, guilty until proven innocent eh? The new left wing mantra.

 

Oh right...I forgot...anyone who disagrees with you in Left wing....
So no proof backing up your claim?

 

I am not the one falling for 'unnamed sources' and no evidence or proof. Just sayin.

 

And yet you're claiming it's fake news with no evidence or proof.

 

OK, I get it. You believe everything you read with absolutely no skepticism and no proof is needed, just belief.

 

I never made a claim that he did say it. YOU however did make a claim he DIDN'T say it. And you did so with no evidence or proof. Funny that.

 

Upper level shear weakens and sometimes kills hurricanes if we are lucky enough to get it.

Nuking a hurricane is no more bat shat crazy than colonizing Mars.

Ask Michio Kaku and Neil DeGrasse Tyson about the question of nuking hurricanes, not stupid ass politicians and stupid ass political advisors and stupid ass candidates and stupid ass feminists.

I heard they considered towing icebergs into the Gulf as hurricane season approached at one time, but that burns way too much fuel. But it's good the question was asked.

 

Here you are again defending 'unnamed sources'. Give some proof.

 

No I haven't. Actually I've spent overwhelming majority of posts arguing against the idea scientists have talking about using nukes for stopping hurricanes. So there's that.