<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Hurricanes ranked by energy content&#8230;</title>
	<atom:link href="http://habitablezone.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-ranked-by-energy-content/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-ranked-by-energy-content/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2026 19:18:10 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: RL</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-ranked-by-energy-content/#comment-40148</link>
		<dc:creator>RL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:54:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=66741#comment-40148</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html&lt;/a&gt;

&lt;strong&gt;Subject: C5c) Why don&#039;t we try to destroy tropical cyclones by nuking them ?
Contributed by Chris Landsea (NHC)&lt;/strong&gt;


&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;em&gt;During each hurricane season, there always appear suggestions that one should simply use nuclear weapons to try and destroy the storms. Apart from the fact that this might not even alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea.

Now for a more rigorous scientific explanation of why this would not be an effective hurricane modification technique. The main difficulty with using explosives to modify hurricanes is the amount of energy required. A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20x10^13 watts &lt;strong&gt;&lt;ul&gt;
and converts less than 10% of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind.&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/strong&gt;

 The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes. According to the 1993 World Almanac, the entire human race used energy at a rate of 10^13 watts in 1990, a rate less than 20% of the power of a hurricane.

If we think about mechanical energy, the energy at humanity&#039;s disposal is closer to the storm&#039;s, but the task of focusing even half of the energy on a spot in the middle of a remote ocean would still be formidable. Brute force interference with hurricanes doesn&#039;t seem promising.
In addition, an explosive, even a nuclear explosive, produces a shock wave, or pulse of high pressure, that propagates away from the site of the explosion somewhat faster than the speed of sound. Such an event doesn&#039;t raise the barometric pressure after the shock has passed because barometric pressure in the atmosphere reflects the weight of the air above the ground. For normal atmospheric pressure, there are about ten metric tons (1000 kilograms per ton) of air bearing down on each square meter of surface. In the strongest hurricanes there are nine. To change a Category 5 hurricane into a Category 2 hurricane you would have to add about a half ton of air for each square meter inside the eye, or a total of a bit more than half a billion (500,000,000) tons for a 20 km radius eye. It&#039;s difficult to envision a practical way of moving that much air around.

Attacking weak tropical waves or depressions before they have a chance to grow into hurricanes isn&#039;t promising either. About 80 of these disturbances form every year in the Atlantic basin, but only about 5 become hurricanes in a typical year. There is no way to tell in advance which ones will develop. If the energy released in a tropical disturbance were only 10% of that released in a hurricane, it&#039;s still a lot of power, so that the hurricane police would need to dim the whole world&#039;s lights many times a year.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html</a></p>
<p><strong>Subject: C5c) Why don&#8217;t we try to destroy tropical cyclones by nuking them ?<br />
Contributed by Chris Landsea (NHC)</strong></p>
<blockquote><p><em>During each hurricane season, there always appear suggestions that one should simply use nuclear weapons to try and destroy the storms. Apart from the fact that this might not even alter the storm, this approach neglects the problem that the released radioactive fallout would fairly quickly move with the tradewinds to affect land areas and cause devastating environmental problems. Needless to say, this is not a good idea.</p>
<p>Now for a more rigorous scientific explanation of why this would not be an effective hurricane modification technique. The main difficulty with using explosives to modify hurricanes is the amount of energy required. A fully developed hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20&#215;10^13 watts <strong>
<ul>
and converts less than 10% of the heat into the mechanical energy of the wind.</ul>
<p></strong></p>
<p> The heat release is equivalent to a 10-megaton nuclear bomb exploding every 20 minutes. According to the 1993 World Almanac, the entire human race used energy at a rate of 10^13 watts in 1990, a rate less than 20% of the power of a hurricane.</p>
<p>If we think about mechanical energy, the energy at humanity&#8217;s disposal is closer to the storm&#8217;s, but the task of focusing even half of the energy on a spot in the middle of a remote ocean would still be formidable. Brute force interference with hurricanes doesn&#8217;t seem promising.<br />
In addition, an explosive, even a nuclear explosive, produces a shock wave, or pulse of high pressure, that propagates away from the site of the explosion somewhat faster than the speed of sound. Such an event doesn&#8217;t raise the barometric pressure after the shock has passed because barometric pressure in the atmosphere reflects the weight of the air above the ground. For normal atmospheric pressure, there are about ten metric tons (1000 kilograms per ton) of air bearing down on each square meter of surface. In the strongest hurricanes there are nine. To change a Category 5 hurricane into a Category 2 hurricane you would have to add about a half ton of air for each square meter inside the eye, or a total of a bit more than half a billion (500,000,000) tons for a 20 km radius eye. It&#8217;s difficult to envision a practical way of moving that much air around.</p>
<p>Attacking weak tropical waves or depressions before they have a chance to grow into hurricanes isn&#8217;t promising either. About 80 of these disturbances form every year in the Atlantic basin, but only about 5 become hurricanes in a typical year. There is no way to tell in advance which ones will develop. If the energy released in a tropical disturbance were only 10% of that released in a hurricane, it&#8217;s still a lot of power, so that the hurricane police would need to dim the whole world&#8217;s lights many times a year.</em></p></blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RL</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-ranked-by-energy-content/#comment-40147</link>
		<dc:creator>RL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:50:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=66741#comment-40147</guid>
		<description>A 1kiloton nuke is 4TJ...

But I know for a fact that the total energy in a hurricane dwarfs even a megaton class nuke... perhaps they are only considering the wind energy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A 1kiloton nuke is 4TJ&#8230;</p>
<p>But I know for a fact that the total energy in a hurricane dwarfs even a megaton class nuke&#8230; perhaps they are only considering the wind energy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-ranked-by-energy-content/#comment-40146</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:46:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=66741#comment-40146</guid>
		<description>I think I simultaneously said the same thing in words ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I simultaneously said the same thing in words <img src='https://habitablezone.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-ranked-by-energy-content/#comment-40145</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:45:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=66741#comment-40145</guid>
		<description>Of course wind speed is a direct measure of the instantaneous force exerted against one spot. The additional dimension of energy content is linked to the area covered by the storms, subject to those wind speeds. The bigger the pinwheel, the more energy to crank it to a given speed. Irma&#039;s 400 miles wide, Andrew was an energy runt concentrated into such a small space that at one point it surged to cat 5. The article has dimensioned photos halfway down, and Andrew was half the physical extent of Irma. Extent in time matters too, just ask Houston.

My point was really just that the estimated energy content of a hurricane seems to give a quick synoptic picture of the potential damage a storm can cause. Just like more megatons make nukes more destructive, more terajoules make hurricanes more destructive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course wind speed is a direct measure of the instantaneous force exerted against one spot. The additional dimension of energy content is linked to the area covered by the storms, subject to those wind speeds. The bigger the pinwheel, the more energy to crank it to a given speed. Irma&#8217;s 400 miles wide, Andrew was an energy runt concentrated into such a small space that at one point it surged to cat 5. The article has dimensioned photos halfway down, and Andrew was half the physical extent of Irma. Extent in time matters too, just ask Houston.</p>
<p>My point was really just that the estimated energy content of a hurricane seems to give a quick synoptic picture of the potential damage a storm can cause. Just like more megatons make nukes more destructive, more terajoules make hurricanes more destructive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RL</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-ranked-by-energy-content/#comment-40144</link>
		<dc:creator>RL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:32:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=66741#comment-40144</guid>
		<description>A cylinder of rotating air with Radius R with &lt;del datetime=&quot;2017-09-09T01:34:17+00:00&quot;&gt;velocity V&lt;/del&gt; with average Kinetic energy E  has 4 times the energy of a cylinder of radius R/2 with the same &lt;del datetime=&quot;2017-09-09T01:34:17+00:00&quot;&gt;Velocity&lt;/del&gt; average kinetic energy...
(probably still not exactly right after edit but close enough- been a long day)

So... the size is a major factor in total energy.

But the localized degree of destruction near the eye will depend on maximum windspeeds...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A cylinder of rotating air with Radius R with <del datetime="2017-09-09T01:34:17+00:00">velocity V</del> with average Kinetic energy E  has 4 times the energy of a cylinder of radius R/2 with the same <del datetime="2017-09-09T01:34:17+00:00">Velocity</del> average kinetic energy&#8230;<br />
(probably still not exactly right after edit but close enough- been a long day)</p>
<p>So&#8230; the size is a major factor in total energy.</p>
<p>But the localized degree of destruction near the eye will depend on maximum windspeeds&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RL</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-ranked-by-energy-content/#comment-40143</link>
		<dc:creator>RL</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:22:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=66741#comment-40143</guid>
		<description>Not surprisingly, wind loads grow with the square of the wind speed...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not surprisingly, wind loads grow with the square of the wind speed&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert</title>
		<link>https://habitablezone.com/2017/09/08/hurricanes-ranked-by-energy-content/#comment-40142</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 09 Sep 2017 01:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.habitablezone.com/?p=66741#comment-40142</guid>
		<description>Who lives in south Alabama just across the border from Florida, and since moving there he&#039;s become a weather junkie. With 112 terajoules of Irma potentially headed his way, for sure to at least sweep him with her skirts, he&#039;s watching his maps and his weather blogs like a hawk.

One mindblower from the article: &quot;Hurricane&quot; Sandy bound up &lt;i&gt;330 terajoules&lt;/i&gt;, but it was only a cat 1 in terms of windspeed. I&#039;m thinking that energy content is a better measure of storm&#039;s power to whup our asses than windspeed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Who lives in south Alabama just across the border from Florida, and since moving there he&#8217;s become a weather junkie. With 112 terajoules of Irma potentially headed his way, for sure to at least sweep him with her skirts, he&#8217;s watching his maps and his weather blogs like a hawk.</p>
<p>One mindblower from the article: &#8220;Hurricane&#8221; Sandy bound up <i>330 terajoules</i>, but it was only a cat 1 in terms of windspeed. I&#8217;m thinking that energy content is a better measure of storm&#8217;s power to whup our asses than windspeed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
