So neither conducting gas nor any other conducter would've done it? How about EM-Light (on a frequency that causes induction in some way slowening the storm). In some way? How about conducting gas put in the water, creating from the water a paraboloid shape focusing the light into a ray (given that can be done)?
You don't want to give up do you? Well if I had to try, here is what I would do: I would suck up some cold* (~ 4degree C) bottom (or deep) water and spray it up in the storm's air. That would accomplish two things: (1) It would remove heat from the air. (Both by warming the spray water up to air temperature and by evaporation, the latter being much more important) (2) I would spray it somewhat "into the wind" and that is a lot of water droplet mass to accelerate up to wind speed. - Steals momentum from the air or "slows it down" Also note the water is free - not like your copper wires or toxic chemicals. We already have fire boats that could do this with surface water* ---------------- *Might be better just to use surface water as lifting a column of 4C water to the ocean surface is not free - costs energy and the warming of the water to air temperature would be about (or less than) 1% of the cooling. Probably it is better to use that "lifting energy" just to pump more near surface water into the air.
Basically I'm thinking: why not pour conducting material into the water, earthing it that way? rust and iron dust, m8: Ship ohoy, ship ohoy..
You do know that my degree entailed physics up to quantum mechanics right? I didn't get the physics wrong, your set up is inane. Believe it or not...I understand that \( \frac{1}{\rho} = \frac{p}{R_d T}\) \(\frac{d \nabla_{F}}{d M} = <\frac{-1}{\rho},\frac{-1}{\rho},\frac{-1}{\rho}>\) \(\frac{\Delta \nabla_F}{||\Delta \nabla_F ||}\) --> Unit wind vector from pt a --> b And in the case of the equatorial to polar region along the surface: \(T(Lon) < 0\) ~> \( \frac{1}{\rho (Lon)} < 0\) Therefore the wind vector always points which direction? But magically!!! At some really high level! \(\frac{d \rho}{d^2 h} > 0 \) and then soon after \(\frac{d \rho}{d h} > 0 \) because \(\frac{d} {d h}\frac{d \rho}{d p} >\frac{d} {d h}\frac{d \rho}{d T}\) Because pressure is logarithmic whereas Temperature is linear. And then guess what happens soon after?!?! The pressure gradient reverses! Then guess what happens after that!! The stratosphere! I'll make you a nicer deal, use the equation for the pressure gradient force to give me a conceivable instance where it would EVER point away from the High temp to Low temp...High Pressure to Low Pressure. I dare you.
You do know, don't you that salt water is a poor conductor already - but a much better conductor than required to short out any static electric field. I would bet small iorn dust etc would acutually REDUCE the effecive conductivity - The Na and Cl ions in the sea water can move much easier than little lumps (dust) of conductive dust can.
How about real groovie material then, stuff that REALLY conduct? How about putting some copper in it m8? I know we can afford that.. Besides, the sea does get charged up by a whirl, when it's there. Basically it has an electricity moving in circles. If some copper gets into the swirl, maybe it'd conduct out. But if you say salt is better, maybe we should salt the sea then?
Yes you did - read post 31 and tell where it is false, even applied to the "box" being only the non rotating planet's gravity field confinement of the air as in the footnote. It never will, nor will thermal energy flow from cold to hot - both for the same reason - That violates thermodynamics. Further more, if either did you could make a greater than unity energy generator. Thus that violates conservation of energy too! But nothing I said even vaguely suggest that. You need to dream up some better "duck and weave" or admit your mistake. Nor is reducing complex problem to its essentials "insane" - That is a standard procedure to aid understanding. - Why with my box example, in post 31, even a 10 year old can see your physic was wrong. I ask you to defend WHAT YOU POSTED. I will not defend what I never posted and know is false.
Billy has the right idea, cooling off the water will kill tropical/hurricane force storms. Problem is resources and energy needed to do such a feat
It is not the ocean water that you should try to cool* - it is the temperature of the air of the hurricane I "suggested" cooling. Why I "suggested" spraying ocean water into the storm. (Suggested is in quotes as even my idea is impractical - too much cost for the reduction in storm intensity it could make.) ------------------ *That is totally impossible as there is no place to put the thermal energy removed from the ocean. Even if heat pumps and the energy to run them were free, the net effect of cooling the ocean mass even only one degree would be to heat the air many degrees (> 100 degrees as quick guess) and make hurricanes stronger and more frequent as well as killing everyone with heat strokes. Nature taking heat from the oceans into the air is what MAKES hurricanes - We don't want to help her out with this energy transfer. We want to transfer heat FROM the hurricane air back INTO the ocean or at least lower the air temperature.
Fine have it your way: You think because warm air rises that it will rise over the cold air, well that's true obviously. From what I can gather, you don't understand a few things 1. Air parcels flow parallel to isobars, not heights. This means that for a warmer parcel to just maintain a constant HEIGHT it must do work, why do you think there's rain ahead of a warm front? 2. Work is done for air parcels to move vertically. 2b That work energy is expended in the lower atmosphere, not the upper atmosphere. It's called pseudo-adiabatic lifting. The work: \(p\alpha^\eta = K \) ] where \(\eta = 1.4\) for diatomic gas \(p = K\alpha^{-\eta}\) \(\Delta W = \int_{\alpha_1}^{\alpha_2} K\alpha^{-\eta} d\alpha\) \(\Delta W = \frac{K}{1-\eta}[\alpha_2^{(1-\eta)} - \alpha_1^{(1-\eta)}]\) \(\alpha = \frac{p}{C_1}\) \(\Delta W = \frac{K}{1-\eta}[(\frac{p_2}{C_1})^{(1-\eta)} - (\frac{p_1}{C_1})^{(1-\eta)}]\) All of that work is done LOCALLY at pressure_n, and almost all of that work is done near the surface. THEN!! THAT PARCEL RISES AT THIS LAPSE RATE: \(\Gamma _{saturated} = \frac{-g[\frac{Lr_s}{R_d T} + 1]}{C_p[\frac{L^2 \epsilon r_s}{C_p R_d T^2} +1] }< \Gamma_{dry} \approx -6.5 K / km\) L - Latent Heat e - vapor pressure Cp - J/kg K - Constant pressure val So at some point after moving north, it becomes warmer than the air to the south of it and THEN it reverses If that doesn't quell your myopic view of atmospheric dynamics in regards to the pressure gradient force...NOTHING WILL...in which case, you can suck an egg.
***Moderator Note*** While I understand the frustration that can be generated in discussions such as this, please try and keep personal sniping to a minimum. Perhaps it might help alleviate some of the tension if one side or the other could produce some text book examples or references to support their argument. I also suspect that there may be a misunderstanding at play, and that the pair of you might be arguing at cross purposes.
So the vertically rising moist air masses we often see in summer are following vertical isobars according to you !!!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I always thought they were a natural example of the Tayor instability. I.e. as they rise, they adiabatically cool, but less so than dry air would as their adiabatic cooling is partially offset by the condensation of some water vapor inside the cloud. Thus, they are warmer than the surrounding air which is dryer and did just adiabatically cool. So they are less dense than the surrounding air as some of the condensed water falls down (that is called rain or hail). Being less dense than the surround air, due to this loss of mass, they “float up” even higher. – This is basically a positive feedback instability until they run out of internal heating via lack of water vapor for condensation. But I must be wrong about this Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! – You are a meteorologist and tell me that air parcels always follow the isobars.* – Please don’t tell the thunder head clouds they are supposed to follow the isobars, not go straight up into lower pressure regions. You don’t want to disturb mother nature with your equations, do you? :shrug: -------- *And surely we agreed isobars do NOT go straight up like these clouds do. PS to Trippy I just produced a photograph showing that air masses do not always follow the isobars. Is that the sort of thing you asked for in post 51? Also I am not even "snipping" - just correcting errors here and in post 31. I NEVER resort to name calling or telling some one to go suck an egg, etc. When wrong, I Thank for the corrections.
Those are convective systems, not synoptic patterns. Convective storms and anvil clouds are formed when there's an atmospheric inversion. When there is a layer of the atmosphere which is in an energy deficit on an atmospheric layer of warm air (thermodynamic inversion), when the surface warms enough (to the convective temperature) that it heats the lower parcel it can break though the inversion. When the parcel breaks through the accumulated energy surplus is quickly expended in an updraft. These are localized events and have nothing to do with synoptic patterns, which was the topic of discussion. Synoptic events such as latitudinal transfer follow constant pressure.
Well so is the heating of one end of the box in post 31 a convective driven circulation and it does not make any difference how big the box is. - I.e. the concept still applies to a box stretching from the equator to the north pole or even without any box, just letting the non-rotating earth's gravity confine the atmosphere inside an imaginary box. Why not just admit you were wrong? (as any 10 year old would tell you after reading about my simplified example in post 31 of a NS aligned box on a non-rotating earth.)
Glassclear, you burn your neuron minority, carefully avoiding to step on simple words therefor leaving yourself with nothing upon old age else then totally nitted language? I'm sure your right. Perhaps one day you'll explain what you said though, and we'll all be surprised by your keen and penetrating mind.
Because I'm not wrong. Read a book, I'm finished with you. If you wish to COMPLETE my equations, and solve them for a solution which proves your point - I'll admit it. You can't, you don't know how, you're wrong.
I probably could solve your equations, but: (1) I am much too lazy for that now (2) Your equations are obviously are not a full description of air flows as they come to the conclusion that thunderhead clouds cannot exist. I.e. they "prove" air parcels MUST follow isobars. I guess God forgot to tell these clouds that they cannot go straight up. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BTW, I did not notice even one Coriolis terms in your equations, yet that is the main reason for the general clockwise flow over the Atlantic ocean (viewed from space) I.e. as far as global circulation is concerned, you threw the baby out with the wash water! Thus your equation are not a correct description either on the scale of a thunder head cloud or on the scale of the North Atlantic Ocean. Why would I bother to solve them, even if I were not so lazy?
Cooling the water would have a similar effect as the colder water would cool the air, but again as i said and you said, the resources in volved would be off the charts.
Passing thought: a floating windmill arrangement, attached to a sea-anchor and released into the hurricane, should be able to pump cold water into the air (some kind of recirculating/siphon reaching down far enough to get below the thermocline) using the hurricane winds themselves. One of those "eggbeater" vane arrangements that does not need aiming and works well in the fluctuating wind environment of large waves, in my fancy. They could be made fairly cheaply, it could be, and deployed from airplanes maybe?
