[FoRK] DO NOT MENTION THE WEATHER MACHINE UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES

Eugen Leitl eugen
Sat Sep 24 02:46:43 PDT 2005


On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 10:53:48PM -0400, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> Heh heh, cool...
> 
> On a more serious :-/ note: we should be trying to influence the 
> weather.  How much dry ice or liquid nitrogen could you buy with some 

Yes.

> percentage of 200B?  Dose the eye with a big temperature drop and see 
> what happens.  Probably you couldn't affect enough area, but it would be 

Nothing. Do the math.

> worth trying.  Butterfly affect / chaos theory and all that.

Precisely. You have to have a good model that is sufficiently faster
than realtime that you can apply weak perturbations that prevent
things from happening in sensitive places. Apart from a good model,
you'll need a dense realtime sensor network, and of course a means
to apply perturbative forces (however, being able to deploy a few 
TW radiant energy to select spots in the atmosphere is outside of
our league, and multiple large fusion airbursts have gotten out of fashion
for some reason).
 
> Secondarily, depending on fallout cancer rates, just nuke the damn 
> thing.  If projected dead due to cancer were, say, <50 vs. potentially 

You can't cancel a storm by nuking it. A thunderstorm dissipates more
energy than a couple of nukes already. You could use a (very large) nuke 
(probably several) to deflect it while it emerges.

> hundreds dead, it might be viable.  Of course, A) oil rigs all over the 
> place probably make targetting too restricted and B) irrationality about 
> such things would prevent even considering it.

-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a>
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820            http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE



More information about the FoRK mailing list