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