Could this in theory work to "kill" off thunderstorms?

[Raymond Mason]

Now listen, I am suggesting this only because it could potentially save lives. More then likely it might not work out but if it could work out then it was worth mentioning then not saying anything at all.

We all know thunder storms are powered by an updraft. What if we cut off the updraft to the storm effectively killing it. Why would we go through the trouble of doing this? Maybe for dangerous storms that could hit a town or other populated area. If not kill it off at least weaken it so it is unlikely to produce dangerous sized hail or tornadoes.

I offer you a giant water proof sheet that goes through the updraft cutting it off.

The four giant planes are on each side and cut through the middle of the storm. They would be equipped with extremely advanced technology to follow the storm.

For all I know it might need a lot more planes or a really thick heavy sheet in order to do that.

Could there be even a remote possibility of it working?

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Updrafts don't "power" thunderstorms.

 

[Raymond Mason]

Updrafts don't "power" thunderstorms.

Then why is it when rain gets into the updraft it cuts off the storm which kills the system?

 

[Joey Ketcham]

Then why is it when rain gets into the updraft it cuts off the storm which kills the system?

There are many elements that contributes to the development and life cycle of a thunderstorm, to say that an updraft "powers" a thunderstorm in my opinion is not an accurate statement.

 

[James Gustina]

Simple answer: no. Fluid dynamics don't work like this.

 

[Marcus Diaz]

If I remember right, one way that could kill a thunderstorm would be to lay massive amounts of dry ice in its inflow. I mean like impossible levels of dry ice. Storm sucks in this cold dry air, and fall apart. But the amount of money, resources, and transportation needed makes that theory laughable. But in theory, it could work.

 

[Jeff Duda]

Simple answer: no. Fluid dynamics don't work like this.

Exactly. The only thing you'll get with this plan is 4 destroyed aircraft, many pilot fatalities, and probably lots of damage (and more casualties) from when that sheet hits the ground. The amount of mass flux going on in an updraft is way stronger than anything a plastic sheet attached to four planes can deflect/block. Besides, the planes would have to keep pace with the updraft for probably several minutes to keep the residual convergence and upward motion from regenerating the storm. Cutting off one second of the updraft won't stop the storm once it is well established.

 

[Raymond Mason]

Well, I figured; was worth a try at least.

I guess controlling the weather is more then likely not going to happen any time soon. XD

 

[Jeff Duda]

As far as the science on anthropogenic climate change is concerned, we, as humans, are already controlling the weather, just maybe not the way some people want to.

Regarding more focused and immediate controls on the weather...the atmosphere is a HUGE sink of energy. We would need to put way more than you probably could imagine into it to get it to do what we want.

 

[Stan Rose]

Exactly. The only thing you'll get with this plan is 4 destroyed aircraft, many pilot fatalities, and probably lots of damage (and more casualties) from when that sheet hits the ground. The amount of mass flux going on in an updraft is way stronger than anything a plastic sheet attached to four planes can deflect/block. Besides, the planes would have to keep pace with the updraft for probably several minutes to keep the residual convergence and upward motion from regenerating the storm. Cutting off one second of the updraft won't stop the storm once it is well established.

You don't say?
Yeah, but it might make for a helluva plane ride, maybe we could market it towards people with large sums of disposable wealth, kinda like the trip to space deals....

 

[Paul Knightley]

I can't really add to what's been said already but as this appears to have been a 'real' post as opposed to a joke I will anyway.


Before you attempts to modify the atmosphere (intentionally) you should consider why the atmosphere is 'doing' the process you want to prevent it from doing. The main reason the atmosphere 'does' something is to transfer energy (usually heat) from one location to another, in a never-ending attempt to restore balance.

A thunderstorm is a local attempt to remove the vertical instability. If you prevent it from doing that, the atmosphere will still have the imbalance, and will attempt to remove it again, perhaps somewhere else locally, or maybe further away, at a later time. Either way, you're basically just shifting the problem from one place, or time, to the next. The storm you create by doing this might be even more violent, or move over a populated area, when the previous one was going to remain in the sticks.

And, as has been mentioned above, the amount of energy within even a modest thunderstorm updraught is huge - trying to disrupt it would require a similar amount of energy.

In reality, your plastic sheet would simply become part of the thunderstorm's updraught, and be lifted up to the top of the storm, complete with the aircraft, before being dumped to the ground coated in ice.

 

[chrisbray]

All you have to do is fly some planes up, spray chemtrails, and that causes these massive storm systems to form! 2ez.

 

[David E. Young]

It would seem to me that the energy in the updraft would be so great that it would tear any sheet trying to contain it. The amount of force pulling at the planes would easily tear the sheet into pieces and pull on the planes to such a degree to destroy the planes or at least pull them out of control. Not to mention the tremendous difficult in getting such a sheet off the ground and coordinated in the air. So, so many improbabilities.

 

[E Hale]

I'm not sure why the responses have been so dismissive in nature. It's absolutely possible. Your plan itself may be rooted in 21st century technology and unable to achieve the task, but the fact that we understand the mechanisms that create thunderstorms most certainly means we can eventually deter them in some scenarios. A supercell thunderstorm is a relatively small mechanism in scale when compared to an extra-tropical low or a hurricane. I can see technology being developed within the next 50-100 years that can effectively "rip" a supercell apart, maybe set up and ready to go outside of tornado-prone metropolitan areas. I'm not sure what the mechanism will be, but I am confident it will be developed. You're not an idiot for suggesting it.


Side note: We have already developed technology to destroy a supercell: an atomic bomb. Granted, it's more destructive than the original event, but it can be done.

 

[rdale]

You cannot say it can be done without showing it can be done. Saying some voodoo technology in the future will enable it is not sufficient evidence