Jump to content
  • Member Statistics

    17,509
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    joxey
    Newest Member
    joxey
    Joined

The midwest's tornado problem: How to eliminate it


Recommended Posts

The walls would cause a domino effect of some kind, I don't think weakening hurricanes at sea would produce any negative effects.

They vent off heat from the oceans and lower atmosphere. You remove that, I'm sure it could it would cause much bigger problems as far as Earth's temperatures and convective circulations. There serve a purpose...unfortunately, destruction is a result of it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The walls would cause a domino effect of some kind, I don't think weakening hurricanes at sea would produce any negative effects.

 

If you start removing heat engines from the oceanic climate, that can have significant, large-scale effects.

Would this limit southern convection during winter cyclones? Could be a boon to midwest snow lovers.

 

Yes and desertification increasing the chances for another Dust Bowl is really worth extra snow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curiously I was just reading through this paper this afternoon and was getting ready to post it just now, but I see someone else already did! It is nice someone did a numerical simulation and it's no surprise that a 300m wall would have little if any effect. But, that 2500m barrier had a HUGE effect. It totally changed the dynamics of the setup by drastically reducing available moisture and altering the low level flow. I'd really like to see more of these simulations just to see what the long term consequences are and to better answer the hypothetical questions regarding tornado climatology if the United State's had different geographical features.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They vent off heat from the oceans and lower atmosphere. You remove that, I'm sure it could it would cause much bigger problems as far as Earth's temperatures and convective circulations. There serve a purpose...unfortunately, destruction is a result of it.

 

You wouldn't mess with fish storms, only imminent land impacts. Heck, the US hasn't had a hurricane I would waste a dime on in how many years? The storms life cycle would be 99% intact, its only the last 100-200 miles where you could knock an F4 or F5 down to an F1 or F2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't mess with fish storms, only imminent land impacts. Heck, the US hasn't had a hurricane I would waste a dime on in how many years? The storms life cycle would be 99% intact, its only the last 100-200 miles where you could knock an F4 or F5 down to an F1 or F2.

Talking about hurricanes here? Not helping your argument :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't mess with fish storms, only imminent land impacts. Heck, the US hasn't had a hurricane I would waste a dime on in how many years? The storms life cycle would be 99% intact, its only the last 100-200 miles where you could knock an F4 or F5 down to an F1 or F2.

 

quoted for posterity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You wouldn't mess with fish storms, only imminent land impacts. Heck, the US hasn't had a hurricane I would waste a dime on in how many years? The storms life cycle would be 99% intact, its only the last 100-200 miles where you could knock an F4 or F5 down to an F1 or F2.

It takes a while to knock surge down. Katrina is a great example. She packed nearly 30 foot surge with only category 3 winds. Weakening in winds doesn't quickly correspond to a weakening in surge. It would take more than 100 miles to knock down surge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...