Who'll stop the rain?
POSTED BY: AaronAgassi
UPDATED: Sunday, September 11, 2005 22:16
VIEWED: 1982
PAGE 2 of 3
Anthony, are you actually suggesting that reducing the frequency and intensity of hurricanes, or preventing the increasing in frequency and intensity of hurricanes, would not be a desirable outcome?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mr Agassi,
You seem to be presenting the point of view that hurricanes are something to be avoided.
Barring any scientific evidence to the contrary, I'm of the opinion that something which occurs and has been occuring naturally since the dawn of man may actually be a necessary part of our ecosystem.
I wouldn't want to be in the eye of a hurricane, path of a tornado, epicentre of an earthquake, area of a forest fire, or valley beneath a volcano.
However, I do acknowledge that these things, which exist independantly of human beings, may actually be beneficial to the environment.
I am reminded of the problem of non-indiginous plants in South Florida, clogging up the canals. To which a water creature is imported to devour the plants. To which a predatory fish must be found to devour the creature. To which a limiting factor must be found to arrest the spread of the predatory fish.
Clean up the environment, Mr. Agassi. Just don't do it to stop the hurricane. The hurricane belongs here. Meddling in the wrong direction may have unintended effects. Salting the oceans to change their temperature may do more than just tweak the intensity of hurricanes. You are speaking of provoking wide-scale changes to the environment. It may achieve your end of reducing the 'Hurricane Menace' but it may do other things as well.
Clean up the environment. Leave the Hurricanes alone.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stop putting word in my mouth, Anthony. I never actually intended to suggest the complete elimination of all hurricanes. And as for unforeseen consequences, at best that is exactly what we face already, by doing nothing differently.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Together let us put an end to those terrible hurricanes!"
I never intended to put words in your mouth, Mr. Agassi. Perhaps you were using hyperbole to make a point.
Let me make my own point.
While doing nothing to a dying patient is certainly bad, bleeding him as a treatment is equally bad.
You have advocated restoring the rain forest, using more efficient farming, and reducing damaging emissions. Bravo.
You have also advocated salting the oceans in an attempt to reduce their temperature. Boo.
Further, you have advocated these steps to reduce hurricanes. Boo.
Let me make a contemporary analogy for you that may seem more real and practical:
Fight Terrorism? Bravo!
Suspend civil liberties to fight Terrorism? Boo.
Suspend civil liberties to fight Terrorism so that we can gain lucrative positions in the petroleum industry? Double Boo.
Not every action is preferable to doing nothing. Not every means is worthy of the end.
I do not support certain details of your plan, and I do not support its stated objective.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mia culpa, hyperbole. But I am hardly suggesting bleeding the patient. Moreover, you have argued not one whit in support of any complaint that my suggested measures would not work just as advertised, nor to predict any adverse consequence, either.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mr. Agassi,
I am hardly qualified to assert a specific negative impact from salting the oceans to reduce their temperature. I must have left my PHD in ecology in my other pants.
Nor can I find any studies that even address the concern.
And until I am presented with studies that explore the possible ramifications of doing so, I'll be rather unlikely to accept it as a prudent measure.
When I was in High School, I had a Science teacher. He was a wise man, and he taught me something very important.
He told me that there had been a theory proposed about setting up vast arrays of devices in the ocean which converted wave energy into electricity. The idea behind this was that wave energy was free kinetic energy that was there for the taking. Just like sunlight, it is a clean energy that exists in abundance all around us.
There were many reasons offered by many scientists and engineers about why wave energy might be difficult to harness or why the wave devices might be impractical to build. They were all valid to some degree.
What no one considered, and this was frightening, was about the nature of energy itself. Wave energy exists as a component of our Oceans. That energy may seem wasted to us, but in fact it may be doing something. If we take the wave energy out of the water, what ramifications could that have on our ecosystem? When you steal the kinetic energy from water off the Florida coast, what does that mean for harbors in Europe during the Winter?
No one considered it. No one asked. To paraphrase a popular science fiction movie and book: Always with humans it is "Can we do this thing?" or "How can we accomplish this thing?" and almost never is it "Should we do this thing?"
Our Oceans have a certain amount of salt. Our Oceans are at a certain temperature.
You want to dump enough salt on them to influence their temperature on a massive scale.
I think it is reasonable to want a series of studies conducted to examine all possible ramifications of that.
In this case, it is the Ocean which is innocent until proven guilty. You have to prove the validity and safety of your argument, not vice versa.
To put it to you with hyperbole, I'm not prepared to turn the Atlantic Ocean into the Red Sea just because you want to slow down some hurricanes.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have explained the mechanics of the proposed salt conveyance enhancement, as best as the notion was expressed to me. Would you support my call for a feasibility study?
And no, nothing like the Dead Sea! Besides, I doubt enough salt is available for that. Must you so exaggerate, Anthony?
And what of the rest of my proposal?
Incidentally, wave turbines do already exist. But there'd have to be very many of them indeed, to actually quiet the oceans. Similarly, just imagine, how many windmills would it take to actually still the winds!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mr. Agassi,
I have repeatedly endorsed your more common-sense proposals for Hydroponics and re-forestation.
It is the idea of salting the seas that has primarily bothered me, followed by the stated purpose of reducing hurricanes.
As for a feasibility study, I have also (you may note above) stated that a great deal of research would have to be done on the effects of such a procedure before I would think of endorsing it. The feasibility study would have to focus not only on "Can we do it?" but also "What happens if we do it?"
You jest at the wave machine concerns. We would really have to have a lot of wave machines to steal the energy from the Oceans. Indeed. We would also need a lot of wave machines to meet the electrical needs of the United States, which was the purpose of such a device. The concern isn't stilling the Oceans, Mr. Agassi, but rather making them slightly quieter. What effect would that have?
You want to dump enough salt on the sea to change the temperature of the Ocean. I will retort with your own words:
It would take a lot of salt to change the temperature of the Ocean.
I can imagine how many windmills it would take to still the wind. I can imagine how many wave generators it would take to still the Ocean.
How much salt would it take to cool the Oceans? And once the salt disperses, how much more salt would it take? For how many decades?
What would the effect on sea life be in the area where this re-conveyence occurs? What is the effect of the additional salt? The cooler temperatures created?
Have you really given the implications any thought?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I certainly agree that any proper feasibility study ought to address consequences. That rather is the point.
But why are you actually against if not reducing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, at least preventing the increase thereof? Unintended and unforeseen consequence apply to everything, especially including changing nothing and continuing exactly as we are.
Do answer my question in the terms in which I have asked it, Anthony.
As to wave turbines, by analogy to automotive breaks, they all take away the energy of momentum of the car, but the new ones in the hybrid cars capture energy from breaking as electricity. Likewise, a wave turbine, for it's effects upon oceanic currents, is like unto that of a breakwater, regardless that it captures any of the energy it expends from the ocean. That would be the logic by which to predict whatever impact over all. Again, much as with windmills in the atmosphere.
"It would take a lot of salt to change the temperature of the Ocean."
No, not so much, to scale, Anthony. Please reread my proposal and consider the mechanism at work, enhancement to the Thermohaline.
"What would the effect on sea life be in the area where this re-conveyence occurs? What is the effect of the additional salt? The cooler temperatures created?"
Again, Anthony, do reread! The effect of cooling would be to save the reefs that are now baking to death! The need is urgent. And the salt levels with in the sub oceanic current would, presumably, remain the same. Only the volume and strength of the current would be restored to it's former glory, in order to fully resume it's historic cooling function.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But why are you actually against if not reducing frequency and intensity of hurricanes, at least preventing the increase thereof? Unintended and unforeseen consequence apply to everything, especially including changing nothing and continuing exactly as we are.
Do answer my question in the terms in which I have asked it, Anthony."
1) It is not conclusively proven that the frequency and intensity of hurricanes is increasing.
2) If the frequency and intensity of hurricanes is increasing, we do not know that it is not part of a natural cycle.
Given these two premises not yet firmly established, you already want to meddle with the functioning of hurricanes. For all we know, hurricanes may be a mechanism by which the ecology restores itself. Or there may be a natural cycle of increased and decreased activity. Or the sampling may be too small to detect any trends.
Between doing nothing to deter the hurricanes, and doing something without all the facts, I vote on doing nothing.
Now, if you want an advocate for more research, you've got it. I advocate research.
I do not advocate action at this time.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME