Preventing Tornadoes: Myth or Reality?

[Ryan_m_b]

Since the devices are not attached to anything, the rotors would be just as happy to not spin at all, the devices themselves would spin, rotor and all, rather than work against the resistance.

Fair enough, this isn't my field but would counter rotating rotors make a difference? I.e one at each pole spinning counter to the other to provide resistance?

You don't need to convert the energy into any harmless form. Once you extract the energy with any form of resistance at all, (such as flat objects), the tornado won't be able to make use of it.

So what you're really doing is simply tossing inert mass into the tornado, whose inertia alone will extract wind energy.

Next plan then millions of kamikaze UAVS

However, now your tornado becomes a machine gun of 200mph bullets.

Next, next plan...bullet proof houses?

 

[Dotini]

http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/tornado-outbreak-tue-classic-ingredients_2011-05-23

A senior meteorologist delivers an explosive forecast for the next two days.

"the potential atmospheric setup is at least on par, if not more explosive than that May 3, 1999 event!"

He is discussing detailed atmospheric conditions indicating to him the potential of an F5 tornado in the vicinities of Wichita, Oklahoma City and Tulsa beginning Tuesday, May 24, 2011.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Seriously, the only potentially available strategy that has any possibility of someday being practical is some form of cloud seeding of likely "super cells" before funnel clouds actually form. Even then there are real questions about what agents to use (dry ice?) both for effectiveness and environmental safety. The logistics would also be very tricky. At present this strategy is not very promising. Clouding seeding and tornado prevention is briefly discussed in this link.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/

 

[Dotini]

See http://charles-chandler.org/Geophysics/Tornadoes.php" for more info.

@ Charles Chandler: I noticed in section 34 of your paper, you have remarks and images concerning tornadoes with multiple funnels. I further noticed on this evening's tornado coverage on ABC national news a special segment on tornadoes with multiple funnels. They showed good images and video of as many as 3 or 4 funnels on the ground which were writhing closely about each other in a kind of weird dance. Apparently the Joplin F4 had multiple funnels. Apparently many tornadoes may have multiple funnels, but are obscured from easy view. Do such multiple vortexes feed only a single cyclonic cell, or do they each have their own? Such organization and complexity is really impressive.

Respectfully yours,
Steve

 

[dav2008]

We have to nuke 'em and we have to nuke 'em now!

 

[artist97]

Water. Adding water to a functioning tornado will suck out energy.

How to add it?

 

[Evo]

Water. Adding water to a functioning tornado will suck out energy.

How to add it?

Then how do you explain water spouts?

You do also know that tornadoes form from severe rain storms and hurricanes?

Please do not post without linking to the peer reviewed or scientifically acceptable studies that back you up.

 

[arildno]

Since scientific "truths" are only social conventions, I believe the most effective way to eliminate tornadoes is to differentiate "wrongly", so that the Coriolis force disappears.

Very bad force, that one..

 

[artist97]

Waterspouts are not as dangerous as terrestrial tornadoes.

Water, added to a "dry" tornado, absorbs energy.

Stop being condescending ; particularly when you have not thought through the response.

 

[Borek]

Uh oh.

<takes pop corn and coke>

 

[Evo]

Waterspouts are not as dangerous as terrestrial tornadoes.

Water, added to a "dry" tornado, absorbs energy.

Stop being condescending ; particularly when you have not thought through the response.

Enough nonsense. Post the acceptable scientific sources to back your self up.

Borek, hand me some popcorn.

Some vaild tornado sources.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#Climatology

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/faq/faq_tor.php

 

[DaveC426913]

I have been unable to find a good source (including Evo's links) that says dumping water into a tornado will make it stronger, or that dumping water into it will make it weaker.

While true, tornadoes do form from severe active thunderstorms, I don't know if that is convincing enough to conclude that adding lots of water to one would have an enhancing effect. For example, if the water happened to be cooler (because it is being artificially added, as opposed to being evaporated naturally), it could - at least conceivably - have a diminishing effect.

I'd say the jury is out until someone can quote a good source on it.

 

[artist97]

"Post the acceptable scientific sources to back your self up."

(Groan)

The last refuge of the scoundrel is the desire to request references.

Footnote yourself, m'dear.

 

[DaveC426913]

"Post the acceptable scientific sources to back your self up."

(Groan)

The last refuge of the scoundrel is the desire to request references.

No artist, that's PF policy. This is not a board where you can simply speak your mind without backing it up. She is right to request references.

: and then takes one big step away from artist :

 

[artist97]

Water, when subjected to the low pressure of a tornado, turns into water vapor.

So a hypothetical tornado that passes over a pond sucks up water, expending energy. The water goes through a state change and becomes a gas.

Does this cool water have an effect on the tornado?

 

[Evo]

Water, when subjected to the low pressure of a tornado, turns into water vapor.

So a hypothetical tornado that passes over a pond sucks up water, expending energy. The water goes through a state change and becomes a gas.

Does this cool water have an effect on the tornado?

All right, we're not playing here.

You have three days to find that source.

 

[DaveC426913]

Water, when subjected to the low pressure of a tornado, turns into water vapor.

So a hypothetical tornado that passes over a pond sucks up water, expending energy. The water goes through a state change and becomes a gas.

Does this cool water have an effect on the tornado?

Again (and possibly for the last time), you cannot simply state this because you think it is plausible.

Prove it.

[EDIT Oh. Evo beat me to it.]

 

[Evo]

I have been unable to find a good source (including Evo's links) that says dumping water into a tornado will make it stronger, or that dumping water into it will make it weaker.

While true, tornadoes do form from severe active thunderstorms, I don't know if that is convincing enough to conclude that adding lots of water to one would have an enhancing effect. For example, if the water happened to be cooler (because it is being artificially added, as opposed to being evaporated naturally), it could - at least conceivably - have a diminishing effect.

I'd say the jury is out until someone can quote a good source on it.

I never made any claims about tornadoes gaining strength from water.

 

[DaveC426913]

I never made any claims about tornadoes gaining strength from water.

In refuting artist's claim that dumping water into a tornado would weaken it, you pointed out that "...tornadoes form from severe rain storms and hurricanes...". While you didn't say explicitly that tornadoes get strength from moisture, it seemed to be the implication - the significance of the comment - to this reader (and thus possibly others). So I went to see if I could bolster the notion (after all that is how hurricanes get their power). But I haven't been able to find a reference either way.

 

[Dotini]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/tornado-hits-springfield-massachusetts-river-13737392

Here is a video, taken on cue for you just minutes ago, of a tornado crossing a major river at Springfield, Mass.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

In refuting artist's claim that dumping water into a torando would weaken it, you pointed out that "...tornadoes form from severe rain storms and hurricanes...". While you didn't say explicitly that tornadoes get their strength from moisture, it seemed to be the implication - the significance of the comment - to this reader (and thus possibly others). So I went to see if I could bolster the notion (after all that is how hurricanes get their power). But I haven't been able to find a reference either way.

Just remember, if I don't say something, it's because I didn't say it, for a reason. So please refrain from guessing what I might have said or might have meant. You can always ask "did you mean to say *this* and forget?, and I'll say *no*.

What causes tornadoes?
Thunderstorms develop in warm, moist air in advance of eastward-moving cold fronts

But that doesn't mean that these conditions always create tornadoes. All I asked was for him to back up what he said. He refused.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/edu/safety/tornadoguide.html

Since he's reading the global rules now. Here's the Earth forum rules for artist.

Earth Sciences Posting Policy

Controversial claims must be supported by evidence that comes from a scientific, peer-reviewed journal or a similarly reliable source, i.e., unsubstantiated claims are not allowed.

 

[Evo]

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/tornado-hits-springfield-massachusetts-river-13737392

Here is a video, taken on cue for you just minutes ago, of a tornado crossing a major river at Springfield, Mass.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Wow, amazing.

 

[cph]

Might larger cities statistically be more protected because of a heat shield effect? Perhaps the heat of a city is distruptive, in that if more heat (energy) is added to the atmosphere, then perhaps less exothermic water droplet formation.

 

[Ophiolite]

This http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.5466v1.pdf" appears to contradict artists claim. The detailed maths are rather dense, but if I am interpreting it correctly, water would enhance rather than detract from the energy of the tornado.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.rawstory.com/rawreplay/2011/06/incredible-massachusetts-tornado-footage-captures-twin-funnel-clouds/

This is excellent video of the business-end of a Springfield 6/1/11 tornadic vortex just as it attaches itself to the surface. Without this critical leech-like attachment, tornadoes would be only a minor nuisance. Wouldn't learning how to prevent, reverse or destroy this one feature solve our problem?

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Evo]

Might larger cities statistically be more protected because of a heat shield effect? Perhaps the heat of a city is distruptive, in that if more heat (energy) is added to the atmosphere, then perhaps less exothermic water droplet formation.

I've actually read that more heat causes more tornadoes, but this was in a discussion of AGW, so you will need to do your own research on that.

Here is a reason we do not see many tornadoes in a major downtown area.

Why does it seem like tornadoes avoid downtowns of major cities? Simply, downtowns cover such tiny land areas relative to the entire nation. The chance of any particular tornado hitting a major downtown is quite low--not for any meteorological reason, but simply because downtowns are small targets. Even when tornadoes hit metro areas; their odds of hitting downtown are small out of space considerations alone. For example, downtown Dallas (inside the freeway loop) covers roughly three square miles, Dallas County, about 900 square miles. For a brief tornado in Dallas County, its odds of hitting downtown are only about 1 in 300. Still, downtown tornadoes have happened, including at least four hits on St. Louis alone. The idea of large buildings destroying or preventing a tornado is pure myth. Even the largest skyscrapers pale in size and volume when compared to the total circulation of a big tornado from ground through thunderhead.

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/

 

[Evo]

Although this from the two tornado links I posted previously.

Are there electromagnetic or magnetohydrodynamic explanations for the development of tornadoes?

As far as scientists understand, tornadoes are formed and sustained by a purely thermodynamic process. As a result, their research efforts are towards that end. They have spent a lot of time modeling the formation of a tornado and measuring many parameters in and around a tornado when it is forming and going through its life cycle. They have not seen any evidence to support magnetism or electricity playing a role.

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/faq/faq_tor.php

 

[Dotini]

Although this from the two tornado links I posted previously.

I was unable to locate the statement regarding "tornadoes being formed and sustained by purely thermodynamic processes" in the NOAA FAQ. Perhaps it has been deleted?

Anyway, I thought readers, particularly Chas Chandler, would be intrigued by this:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1723338

Electric Currents Accompanying Tornado Activity

Abstract
Measurements of the magnetic field and Earth current in the vicinity of a tornado show large step-like deflections coincident with the touching down of the funnel. Calculations with a simple current model indicate that a minimum current of several hundred amperes must be postulated to account for the observed deflection in magnetic field. The existence of a steady current of 225 amperes for a period of about 10 minutes provides joule heat at the rate of approximately 10$^{10}$ joules per second, and involves a total charge transfer of 135,000 coulombs. The calculations imply that a tornado is electrically equivalent to several hundred isolated thunderstorm cells active simultaneously.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[ChasChandler]

Do such multiple vortexes feed only a single cyclonic cell, or do they each have their own? Such organization and complexity is really impressive.

Hey Steve,
I have never seen any evidence of there being more than one mesocyclone (the large, rotating updraft) inside a supercell. The mesocyclone typically has a diameter of something like 2 km, which is the diameter of a very large tornado. While there can be tornadoes anywhere in the vicinity (sometimes several km away), to my knowledge the main tornado is always associated with the mesocyclone.

In refuting artist's claim that dumping water into a tornado would weaken it, you pointed out that "...tornadoes form from severe rain storms and hurricanes...". While you didn't say explicitly that tornadoes get strength from moisture, it seemed to be the implication - the significance of the comment - to this reader (and thus possibly others). So I went to see if I could bolster the notion (after all that is how hurricanes get their power). But I haven't been able to find a reference either way.

Here are some rough calculations that I did, using numbers from the source that Steve quoted, as well as other sources. Tornadoes do seem to get a respectable amount of energy from the release of latent heat from the condensation of water vapor, while ohmic heating from the electric current inside the tornado appears to make a far more substantial contribution.

First the latent heat calculations. Let's assume that the ambient temperature is a sweltering 40 °C, and that the relative humidity is 100%. The lowest pressure drop ever recorded in a tornado was 100 mb below ambient. That would lower the temperature to roughly 10 °C, forcing the condensation of most of the water vapor, and the release of latent heat.

maximum water vapor content at 40 °C = 51.1 g/m³

maximum water vapor content at 10 °C = 9.4 g/m³

condensation = 51.1 − 9.4 = 41.7 g/m³

tornadic inflow (EF1) = 1,000 m³/s

total condensation = 1,000 m³/s × 41.7 g/m³ = 41,700 g/s

latent heat from condensation of water = 2,257 J/g

total latent heat = 41,700 g/s × 2,257 J/g = 94,117,000 J/s

watt = joule / second

power = 94,117,000 W
​

Now the ohmic heating calculations. The magnetic field generated by a tornado was measured at 1.5 × 10⁻⁸ teslas from a distance of 9.6 km away using a magnetometer. From this we can calculate the amps.

amps = teslas × 2 π r / permeability

permeability of air = 4 π × 10⁻⁷ N/A²

amps = (1.5 × 10⁻⁸ × 2 × 3.14 × 9600) / (4 × 3.14 × 10⁻⁷) = 720 A
​

Guessing that the tornado was 300 m tall, and given an electric field of 5 kV/m, we can then calculate the watts.

volts = 300 m × 5,000 V/m = 1,500,000 V

watts = amps × volts = 720 × 1,500,000 = 1,080,000,000 W
​

More conservative estimates of the typical current densities are in the range of 100~250 amps, but even at the resultant 150~375 million watts, that's still a lot more power than the 100 million watts that could be coming from latent heating.

In addition to the ohmic and the latent heating inside the tornado, there is also, of course, the low pressure aloft inside the thunderstorm enhancing the updraft, and there is also frictional heating at the lower boundary.

Only the frictional heating at the ground level could possibly be responsible for the extreme low pressure at the base of the tornado, as it is the only energy source that is concentrated near the ground. Estimates of the (destructive) work done by the tornado on the ground are in the range of 5 million watts for an F1 tornado, to 5 billion watts for an F5. The effect on the air of the thermalized energy is, of course, to increase its buoyancy, accounting for the vigorous updraft at the base of the vortex, which cannot be explained in any other way.

I was unable to locate the statement regarding "tornadoes being formed and sustained by purely thermodynamic processes" in the NOAA FAQ. Perhaps it has been deleted?

Here is the link. The quote is in a pop-up that appears if you hover over the question in the right-hand sidebar, "Are there electromagnetic or magnetohydrodynamic explanations for the development of tornadoes?"

http://www.nssl.noaa.gov/primer/tornado/tor_predicting.html"

 

[anonymity]

I think it is possible - you have to find (and kill) correct butterfly in time.

lol @ chaos theory jokes =s

 

[ak666666]

With much more greenery, IR would be reflected back more, ground will heat up less and hot air will rise up less. This could lessen tornado force. No?

 

[DoggerDan]

While weather experts understand what conditions tend to produce tornadoes, I think there is a good bit not understood about exactly when, where, and why they occur. Until we have a better understanding, it would seem that prevention is a little ahead of the game. Beyond that, there are such tremendous amounts of energy involved that one wonders if intervention could ever be practical. For the foreseeable future, increasingly effective early warning systems are probably the best hope.

Some dwellings are far more tornado-resistant than others. If I ever moved to Kansas, I wouldn't life in a traditional two-story house!

 

[atheerzahroon]

I think if we can make a thermodynanic changes to the maximum or minimum pressure regions of tornado we can control it. Is there a pressure diagram of these regions ?

 

[atheerzahroon]

Here are some rough calculations that I did, using numbers from the source that Steve quoted, as well as other sources. Tornadoes do seem to get a respectable amount of energy from the release of latent heat from the condensation of water vapor, while ohmic heating from the electric current inside the tornado appears to make a far more substantial contribution.




This is a very good calculations. But don't you think that making such big magnetic field is hard to reach and you need to direct your magnetic effects to the tornado. How can you do the by using a wide spread magnetic field.

 

[atheerzahroon]

how is that