Mad Science of the Week: THE TORNADO MASTER!

[athelind]

Tornado Master!

Ontario Louis Michard proposes using the waste heat from a conventional power plant to create a tamed tornado, and generating far more power using turbines that tap into the vortex's energy.

On the longer term, he proposes setting up vortex engines in the warm seas around the equator, providing not only a ready-made, inexhaustable source of heat to sustain the vortices, but also taking the waste heat building up from greenhouse impacts and channeling it into the upper atmosphere to cool off the whole damned planet.

I remember that Frederick Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth used a very similar process to both generate energy and vent massive amounts of heat to terraform Venus in The Space Merchants and The Merchant's War.

This is so utterly over the top, and fraught with so many delightfully cinematic ways to go horribly, horribly wrong, and yet it's packed full of SO CRAZY IT JUST MIGHT WORK goodness.

But, seriously, atomic-powered tormandos? Calling Doctor Neil "Storm" Cloud!

Comments

[ebony14.livejournal.com]

And not even Superman can stop him this time!!!

[tprjones.livejournal.com]

"...cool off the whole damned planet."

I'm not sure that's such a good idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallen_Angels_%28science_fiction_novel%29). Our current trend is well within the normal cycles of the planet's changes in temperature, and there's still no verifiable scientific evidence (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/07/a-skeptical-lay.html) that any of the change is man-made. We're overdue for an ice age, and I'd rather not see us set one off because we went and mucked about with the climate just because we assumed we were already mucking about with the climate when in fact we may not have been.

Perhaps we are messing things up. Perhaps we aren't. But if we're so worried about messing things up shouldn't we try to have some sort of proof before we do something that is specifically designed to mess things up?

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

LOL. That's all I can do is laugh.

[tprjones.livejournal.com]

And that's what worries me. These days everyone has their own flavor of insanity that is a sacred "scientific" truth regardless of the evidence that can be studied and quantified, from Intelligent Design to Scientology to Anthropogenic Global Warming.

What ever happened to rationality? When did it become so rediculous to be logical before you go mucking about with this sort of thing?

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Dood, every scientific agency from the National Academy of the Sciences, NASA, even the US military innumerable peer reviewed studies have all concluded with confidences in the .95 area that human activity is responsible for at least some global warming. The science is overwhelmingly and conclusively on the side of human activity causing at least some global warming. The only thing that's seriously being argued over, now, is how bad and to what extent.

You've brought to the table . . . a guy's blog? Is this supposed to outweight the numerous conclusive studies by the most respected scientific organizations in the world on the subject?

Please. it is true that many people have their own insanity masquerading as science, but at least in this case it's the people who continue to deny despite the overwhelming evidence that global warming is happening. The scientific consensus is extremely clear -- clearer, even, than in the debate between intelligent design and evolution.

It wasn't JUST a guy's blog!

[athelind.livejournal.com]

He also linked to a page about a science fiction novel!

Re: It wasn't JUST a guy's blog!

[tprjones.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, but one the setting of which is pretty much exactly what we've been seeing for the past few decades. This article you linked is the next piece in that potentially ironic progression.

[tprjones.livejournal.com]

See, that's not actually true. If you check into the details, many (about 40%) of the scientists that have been quoted by NASA and the UN subcommittee have come out publically declaring that they have been misquoted and taken out of context, and do not in fact support the positions they were claimed by those organizations to be supporting. So far the "science" behing AGW is being used as a political tool. Strip away the politics, and the evidence and the number of experts who take the stand that AGW is confirmed both shrink considerably.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Where do they say this?

[tprjones.livejournal.com]

Various places; very few in peer reviewed journals, many simply online. After watching an interesting documentary (http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html) (admittedly it's also got quite a bit of "science" that can't yet be documented, and goes too far in the other direction, still it makes some interesting points) I dug around online myself. Of the 27 contributors to the IPCC that I picked to dig around online about, 10 of them I found in one way or another disagreeing with the IPCC and making a statement to the effect that they shouldn't have been listed as in agreement.

Don't rely on the statements of others, check it out yourself.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear, you're bringing up The Great Global Warming Swindle? LOL. Are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias"? That's when you only pay attention to the things that support the hypothesis you favor at the risk of everything else. The GGWS is . . . the reigning champion of this methodology.

And the only guy I could find who seriously objected to the IPCC's methodoloy was Christopher Landsea. He disagreed with the IPCC's findings about global warming making hurricane's worse (which is his particular field of study) and left. However, he has repeatedly said that at least some global warming is due to human activity. I couldn't find any other references to IPCC scientists who say that their work was manipulated and I looked for half an hour, which for online is pretty serious.

Interestingly enough, the British agency made to investigate the IPCC in the Stern Review went farther than the IPCC about global warming as caused by humans.

So, really, I want some sources. Where are these scientists that have come out against the IPCC that worked with the IPCC?

Of course, it might be silly at this time to mention the numerous other organizations that support human climate change, such as the Joint Science Academy statements in 2007, 2005 and 2001, or the US National Research Council's 2001 statement. Or how the American Meteorological Society in 2003. Or the American Geophysical Union's 2003 statement about climate change. Or the Federal Climate Change Science Program in 2006. Or the Stern Review. Or . . . oh, geez, I could go on for a while.

OVERWHELMINGLY, the scientific consensus -- not the statements of one former IPCC scientist, or the opinions of science fiction novelists, or some guy on a blog out there, or some crappy documentary -- is that humans drive climate change. That's the science.

To take the contrary position would require more and better science. Not vague statements. C'mon. I need some PROOF. Peer reviewed proof. And I need enough to overcome the vast scientific array of data that is for human climate change. It has to be pretty darn compelling.

You might want to do some checking things out of your own.

[tprjones.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to give you specific references because you'll just accuse me of hand-picking sources that agree with me and ignoring the ones that don't. Enough of that game.

There are a few anomalies that AGW cannot yet explain. The history of sunspot activity being closely related to global temperatures - including the upswing of the 20th century - is one. The recent discovery that Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are all also undergoing global warming at a rate proportionate to the earth is another. Pollution here cannot effect these things.

Let me make it clear that I am NOT saying that AGW is a myth, as there is no direct evidence that contradicts it. It very well may be true. What I am saying that it doesn't yet explain all the evidence, that there is not an overwhelming global consensus on the matter, and that anyone that tells you otherwise is either trying to sell you newspapers, get you to vote for them, get government grants, or has drunk the koolaid. I also find it interesting that the debating methods used by these individuals is also ammusingly similar to those used by the religious right on their favorite topics.

Clearly I am not going to convince you that you should keep an open mind. And until I see some actual scientific evidence that can only be explained by AGW and not the various other theories out there I will not be convinced - and I do not consider appeals to authority to be actual evidence, I want to read their studies and review their conclusions. Feel free to think me a crackpot for it.

I'm sorry for causing a fuss in your comments, athelind. I'll go away and not bother you further.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Actually, the sunspot thing has been discounted. Nature has recently published an article that debunks, conclusively the idea that sunspots have anything to do with global warming.

The notion that for a scientific hypothesis to be true it has to "fit all the evidence" is not the standard that scientists use. They speak in stuff like degrees of confidence. Like I've already said, the degree of confidence that climate scientists have about human activity causing global warming is in the .95 area, which is pretty much the gold standard of scientific research.

And the last I checked referencing the innumerable peer reviewed research papers and studies by the world's leading research institutions isn't the way that fundies try to argue things. The TRUTH is that virtually all climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change, and that it'll have dramatic economic and political consequences.

On the other hand, you can't find ONE peer reviewed source for your position. Not ONE. That's how fundies argue.

[archteryx.livejournal.com]

And this whole thread shows your only big mistake. You're trying to have an honest argument with a Global Warming Wanker, and are getting (predictably) buried in bullshit.

I learned long ago never to argue with wingnuts. They will endlessly spew talking points and bullshit, the sum of which is as good as any Confundus Charm in turning rational debate to mud. They DEPEND on this to "win" their arguments, and they've used it to vast effect on the American public.

It's a strength-sapper. You won't convert him -- just ignore him and go to more productive ventures.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

LOL. You are right! But I'm not actually trying to convert him. I'm hoping that the argument, itself, will help others who might not understand the issue as well make a more informed decision. Granted, given whose journal this is, it's mostly preaching to the choir, but in general I like to give some response to people like this to first let them know that I know they're wrong and, more importantly, so people who might otherwise be fooled by the specious arguments entertained by my opposition (ugh, was that pretense or what?!) might actually see beyond the speciousness.

[archteryx.livejournal.com]

Still, this is the wrong forum if you want to have an argument. You're not even preaching to the choir; just a few friends in the pews, along with one troll. (And the fact that he denies being one makes him no less a troll).

Go to DailyKos or Firedoglake if you want to sing to *real* choirs (and one that, because of their sizes, do a good job with squashing trolls).

You do a good job with debating people capable of real debate; you'd be very welcome there!

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Funny, that's why I keep asking about dumping huge amounts of industrial effluent into the atmosphere.

Do I know you?

[tprjones.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure anymore why you were added to my friends list, as it's been a year or more. I can't recall if I've commented before, for that matter.

However this being your LJ if you'd prefer I'll take my views elsewhere. I am not trying to be a troll.

[hafoc.livejournal.com]

I'd love to see this as a trial project. Um.. wouldn't it cause some crazy changes to the rain patterns, though?

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Oh, bugger you, hehe. I liked the idea a lot more until you brought up the idea that there might be broader consequences. ;)

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Oh, most definitely. I'm one of those people that Michard mentions who get all twitchy at the thought of climate engineering.

Frankly, I think that deliberately generating cyclones on the equator would just be askin' for all new and different hurricane activity.

That's why we call it MAD science!!

...wait, could you sustain a vortex engine along the equator? Natural storms almost never form there...

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

A great idea, but the article itself was AWFUL in a lot of ways. But the IDEA is pretty cool. I hope he can get it to work. Greenhouse powered power? COOL.

[doc-mystery.livejournal.com]

I'm reminded of a pulp villain I once came up with who artificially augmented hurricanes on a lonely island south of Cuba to make them into a 1930s weird science particle accelerator.

::B::

[tombfyre.livejournal.com]

Sounds crazy enough to try! :D I wish the guy luck.