Trump, Hurricanes, and Blithering Idiots

Today’s post comes by way of this blitheringly idiotic video:

No, President Trump wasn’t the one being an idiot. He was thinking, brainstorming, throwing out ideas on how to solve a serious problem. It’s what good leaders do when they want the experts to start thinking about serious threats. Good leaders identify risks, prioritize them based on both costs as well as probability, and formulate cost-effective solutions to reduce or even eliminate the risk. It’s up to the experts to determine what’s feasible.

Here’s my missive to the videographer who created this cesspool of uninformed disdain against our nation’s president:

Farron Cousins, I’m aghast to see you’re still so hurt from the 2016 loss at the Presidential Elections that you devote an entire segment to using an offhand comment as a means of discrediting a gentleman whose degree is in economics, not physics. Do you shoot fish in barrels, too, or do you just toss in a hand grenade?

Of course nuking a hurricane is foolish. A hurricane is a heat engine. Adding more heat to the center (the eye) simply makes it stronger. Detonating a nuke off to the side would temporarily disrupt flows only in the area immediately adjacent to the nuke. But the greatest issue is the fact that “if we crunch the numbers for an average hurricane (1.5 cm/day of rain, circle radius of 665 km), we get a gigantic amount of energy: 6.0 x 10^14 Watts or 5.2 x 10^19 Joules/day.” Thus, even Tsar Bomba’s total load of 50 MT of energy is equivalent to the energy developed by a hurricane every 5.81 minutes.

What I’m wondering, there, Farron, is what about of liberal lunacy is behind your “dumb and dangerous idea” assertion?

As a scientist who worked with nuclear weapons back in the 1990s, I’d like to invite you to put aside your painfully obvious liberal, anti-Trump agenda and propaganda for a minute and simply consider the following name: Red Adair.

If you will recall, Red Adair began fighting oil well fires after returning from serving in an Army bomb disposal unit during World War II. He started his career working for Myron Kinley, the “original” blowout/oil firefighting pioneer. They pioneered the technique of using a V-shaped charge of high explosives (the Munroe effect being used during the war and used in bazookas and the atom bomb), the high velocity blast of which would snuff the fire. He founded Red Adair Co. Inc. in 1959, and over the course of his career battled more than 2,000 land and offshore oil well, natural gas well, and similar spectacular fires. At age 75, Adair took part in extinguishing the oil well fires in Kuwait set by retreating Iraqi troops after the Gulf War in 1991.

Now, let us think… “Hmm… Where might President Trump have found his idea for snuffing out a hurricane with a nuke? Hmm… I wonder…”

Yes, absolutely, nuking a hurricane is dissimilar from using shaped charges to blow out oil well fires. No matter where you placed the nuke, or nukes, or their sizes, it simply would not work.

There’s no way to “blow out” a hurricane like we can oil fires.

Well, actually… Yes, we can. However, it would require blowing the ENTIRE air mass of the hurricane several hundred if not more than a thousand miles away, over cooler waters. Obviously, that’s a no-go, as it would require catastrophically large displacement of air, the effects of which would be far worse than the hurricane itself.

HOWEVER, just as a small force can precess a large, high-energy gyroscope over time, so, too, can a small force, relative to the hurricane, precess a hurricane and divert it’s path. Even then, however, there remain far too many problems for diversion to be practical. First, the force (heat) required to accomplish this would be enormous, vastly eclipsing our nation’s entire energy usage for a year. Second, where are you going to divert it? To some other state? They might have something to say about that. To another country? Same. To the open ocean? Hurricanes that haven’t fully expended their energy over land have a nasty habit of regaining energy out over the ocean and spinning right back around.

Perhaps one day we might be able to anchor a perpetual “black hole” hurricane just northwest of the Turks and Caicos or east of Barbados that would suck in most other hurricanes, giving them vent, and prevent them from slamming into our shores. It could become a perpetual storm, much like Jupiter’s giant Red Spot.

While fantastic, who knows what havoc such a beast would wreak on global weather patterns and ocean currents? It may very well wind up causing far more harm than good.

Alternatively, we could cool the oceans beneath the hurricane, removing its heat energy, or warm the air mass feeding into the hurricane. The “heat engine” of hurricanes requires two things: warm oceans and cool air, which is why the vast majority of them form in late summer and throughout the fall. Either measure, or their combination, would stall the heat engine of the hurricane itself.

Farron! Are you still with me? Do you see what’s happening here?

Trump’s comment got people are ARE scientists and engineers THINKING, and that’s precisely what a great leader does. Great leaders don’t solve problems. They inspire others, the experts, to solve problems.

I really couldn’t care less what you think about President Trump. He’s no scientist, I’ll give you that. But he most certainly is an astute businessman, understand large, global economics exceedingly well, and most importantly of all for anyone at the top of the Executive Branch of the United States of America, he inspires the best and brightest to THINK. Since your diatribe against President Trump failed to address the issue of hurricanes, I can only assume you’re certainly not among the best and the brightest.

Kelly Perdew is bright. Just examine his credentials:

Since I am fairly bright, with a strong background in both engineering (aerospace) and business (3 degrees — I love learning!), let me give you a few other things to think about:

Thermal Mass: Even in tropical climates like Hawaii, where the day/night temperature difference may only be 10 degrees, so long as the temperature highs and lows bracket the comfort zone (68-74), thermal mass can be employed to greatly reduce one’s heating and air conditioning bills, thereby reducing one’s impact on the climate. Furthermore, steel-reinforced concrete is literally hurricane-proof, the principle reason why it’s used in so many buildings throughout the typhoon-riddles Pacific. Okinawa, Seoul, Manilla, and so many other cities are absolutely chock full of single family homes as well as low and high-rise apartment buildings built mostly out of steel-reinforced concrete.

Guess what doesn’t happen to them during hurricanes and typhoons?

By contrast, much of American construction is stupid. We build poorly-designed, structurally shoddy homes and businesses in hurricane and tornado country then cry like a baby demanding the government rescue us from our stupidity when they’re damaged or demolished.

Steel-reinforced concrete provides a great combination of strength and thermal mass, provided it’s placed on the INSIDE of the exterior insulation, not the outside. I don’t know why so many builders screw that up, but they do. Also, since concrete can release radon, you must apply an interior sealant. If your RMS (root mean square) exterior temperature is within the comfort zone, however, insulation is often unnecessary. Just use a thicker wall to achieve less variation of temperature.

While concrete does provide some insulation, the most cost-effective solution while maintaining American aesthetics is achieved by using both concrete and exterior insulation covered by either traditional siding or a brick/stone veneer.

In case you haven’t figured it out, yet, there are things we should have been doing for decades instead of “building houses upon the sand.”

Furthermore, since you have the audacity to refer to President Trump as a moron while failing to consider any of the above, I can only conclude you’re projecting. If this triggers you, well, that’s yet another issue endemic to liberals, Democrats, and anti-Trumpers.

It is my sincerest wish you be enlightened, not triggered. Think on that.

Finally, to answer your questions before you errantly assume otherwise…

Yes, I voted for Trump as opposed to Hillary the clueless, self-admitted criminal. No, I am not in the least bit enamored by President Trump. Am I deluded? Certainly not. The economic numbers of our country and his many accomplishments speak for themselves.

Lastly, you have a NICE day.

ETA: Looks to me like the source from Axios was LYING. Ergo, the only substance behind the YouTube video is just another brain-washed anti-Trumper fueled by hate and FAKE NEWS.

Leave a Reply