Hurricane Sandy.

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by Bebelina, Nov 8, 2012.

  1. Bebelina Feminazi Messiah Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    My intention with this thread was however sincere, so it would be a pity to delete it all because of one person claiming it has astronomical influences.

    About terraforming, if we boldly assume that Sandy was indeed manufactured, hypothetically speaking of course, then perhaps the reason for this was to try out terraforming, because we will need the ability and at the same time help Obama win the election. I have nothing against Obama and thought he would have won anyway, but the hurricane definitely helped, don't you think?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Two things here:

    1. There's not enough energy available to us in any form that would allow us to test something on the magnitude of Sandy. And we're a LONG way from being able to control such massive amounts.

    2. I've seen more than one report that Sandy actually LOST votes for Obama (even though he won anyway) because of the polling problems it caused in both NY and NJ. The estimates are that between 80,000 and one million more votes would have been cast for him if it hadn't been for the transportation problem and other troubles.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    The hurricane didn't help anyone really. Sure, had Obama done a really poor job of...well, doing his job in the face of things, it might have had a bit of an influence, but from the poll numbers it was as big of a blip on things as the debates, the conventions, etc. Oh, and it hit a heavily Democrat voting area, so no, certainly not planned by the President. Romney's numbers weren't really influenced either, he was already on a decline. The really only big jump in poll numbers was from the 47% video, and that makes sense. Bad weather is bad weather, and Obama did his job, so nothing much outside of showing he can be President, which was already known anyway.

    Besides, storm manipulation needs an atmosphere. Terraforming usually implies that such an atmosphere needs to be built up or altered. You want such technology to make a big deal politically? How about if Obama had come out right as Sandy was about to slam into the coast, and said that his science group has just finished a hurricane killer, and then zaps Sandy, dissipating her. Less damage, same or more bump.

    I mean it's all fantasy anyway, the energy levels in just a regular thunderstorm are tremendous.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    Two things here:

    1. There's not enough energy available to us in any form that would allow us to test something on the magnitude of Sandy. And we're a LONG way from being able to control such massive amounts.

    2. I've seen more than one report that Sandy actually LOST votes for Obama (even though he won anyway) because of the polling problems it caused in both NY and NJ. The estimates are that between 80,000 and one million more votes would have been cast for him if it hadn't been for the transportation problem and other troubles.
     
  8. Bebelina Feminazi Messiah Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    Don't you at least think it's POSSIBLE that some scientists know more than is revealed to the public?
    With all the new technology, eveything can be measured, analyzed and traced and COPIED.
    I think you are naive to believe this is impossible.
     
  9. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    I don't think the word 'impossible' has been used. It's obviously possible for energy to be stored up in a storm system of this scale. And there's no reason to think that that process can be duplicated or influenced. But the scale of it is beyond us right now. That's all.
     
  10. Bebelina Feminazi Messiah Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    Ok, that is your opinion.

    What areas were mainy affected with destruction, was it Manhattan and New Jersey?
     
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Sure, it's possible. It's possible that you are one of them, and that you have helped cause all the hurricanes in the past 10 years. It's just unlikely.

    We can record a lot. But we can't, for example, record everything that goes on within a hurricane (or even a run of the mill storm.) Which is why we still get surprised from time to time.
     
  12. Bebelina Feminazi Messiah Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    Well, just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it can't be and just because we sometimes get surprised doesn't mean we can't sometimes be in control too.
     
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,755
    Of course. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    Also true. But just because we can control some things does not mean we can control others.
     
  14. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    You might as well face it, young lady - you really have no grasp of what you're trying to discuss here.

    Seriously, the tremendous amount of energy that would be involved in trying to control such a thing is far, FAR above our current technical abilities! And it will likely remain so for at least another century.

    The thing is, people with a minimal amount of technical/scientific background are inclined to believe that we and our technology can do ANYTHING we want! And that's just not true at all. For example, we've seen naive people come in here and suggest we destroy or steer hurricanes with nuclear bombs! Egad!!! Even ignoring the deadly radioactive debris that would create, even those devices do NOT generate enough energy to do such a job. And in addition to that, they would most likely only add fuel (energy) to the storm by giving it extra heat - which is exactly what feeds the storm to begin with.
     
  15. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    If people were not allowed to build stuff on the oceans edge then most of this catastrophy would not have happened. The costs are rising because the value to rebuild on ocean front land is very expensive. Why not just condem that land that is now uninhabited and let it be a natural point of entry into the ocean for all, a public beach? That way the costs would drop considerably and if any other properties would succumb to such a disaster then they too would become a new public beach where no new buildings could be erected.

    I really never understood, besides the tax revenues, why the government would allow to let building be erected this close to the ocean knowing full well that if a dangerous storm should arise that the homeowners would be in peril. Just not common sense to allow such buildings to be made.
     
  16. Read-Only Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,296
    I agree with your point, Buddha, but I suppose it falls under the same tree as building in California does. People are allowed to build homes on mountain sides in earthquake zones, where mudslides happen during heavy rains and in areas subject to wildfires.

    And besides the natural attraction of wanting to build where there's an ocean view, one has to consider what it's like up and down the coast of NY and NJ - there really isn't any space inland to build on unless you want to face a very long commute to work each day.

    New Orleans, however, is a far different case. Much of it is below sea level and the outer delta area has been reduced is storm "stopping power" to the point that has no beneficial effect. And there's *plenty* of inland available fairly nearby. My personal feeling are that N.O. should be forcibly abandoned, filled in and left as a buffer zone for future storms.
     
  17. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Probably because most of that building began centuries ago. New York was settled centuries ago. To relocate portions of the coastal US is not going to be cheap.
     
  18. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    My point was that to leave the areas that are now devistated they way they are and not rebuild on this land already without people living there because their homes are gone or the pier is gone. Why rebuild when there's another storm coming that will be as bad or worse than this one in the future.
     
  19. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    I am sure not all homes will be rebuilt. But there are places like New Orleans and Manhattan that will be rebuilt because of the massive investment that has already been made in those areas. Not until the cost of rebuilding actually exceeds the price of moving will we see that happen, and if we do not address climate change that may be sooner than expected.
     
  20. Rhaedas Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,516
    New Orleans is a perfect example. If we will rebuild there, we'll rebuild anywhere.
     
  21. Buddha12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,862
    It already exceeds the money that America has because America is running on a 16 trillion dollar debt today which merans it can't afford to pay to rebuild these structures especially when there will be another storm soon. Does America haqve to keep digging a deeper grave for itself with giving more money to things that could be prevented to begin with?
     
  22. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    First, the US government owes a substantial portion of the 15 trillion, roughly 5 to 6 trillion of that amount, to itself. Do you know how much it would costs to relocate the coastal communities versus rebuilding? I don't. But I am sure that whenever it becomes economical to relocate, relocation will occur. That relocation may occur quickly or slowly over a prolonged period of time. And two, some portion of the relocation and rebuilding expense would be borne by the taxpayer but not all. And the government has the option of expanding the money supply if need be to finance emergencies like a relocation.
     
  23. Bebelina Feminazi Messiah Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,997
    So if we dare to take the idea a tiny bit further, then if they now must relocate New Jersey to Ohio ( to get rid of all the trash that lives there) then they can build a completely new fancy neighbourhood in that area ( for the better people).
     

Share This Page