tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post3596082062867360572..comments2024-03-28T04:15:44.459-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: Storms are powerful heat engines!Douglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-46655222559255589622015-05-27T23:16:57.556-05:002015-05-27T23:16:57.556-05:00Nevermind engineering the weather... build giganti...Nevermind engineering the weather... build gigantic 'rainmills' and harvest that energy! Imagine the power you could reap in the Amazon, or monsoon season in Asia...Jonahnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-11029839782790427852015-05-26T16:05:32.867-05:002015-05-26T16:05:32.867-05:00Thanks for clarifying. I agree with your point ab...Thanks for clarifying. I agree with your point about "rapid" control needing large energy input. (the characteristic timescale that we use to non-dimensionalise to define "rapid" is days because it is relevant to humans, or something else?)<br /><br />But your example of cloud seeding raises the question of whether we fundamentally require large energy inputs to control storms, or if we have simply not (yet) figured out if/how we can exploit some metastability to control storms.<br /><br />Anon@3:17Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-89082752478721225762015-05-26T15:53:14.734-05:002015-05-26T15:53:14.734-05:00Anon@3:17 - I understand what you're saying. ...Anon@3:17 - I understand what you're saying. When we <i>design</i> systems it is possible to control large energies with small inputs (e.g., removing control rods to drive a 2 GW nuclear powerplant critical). My point was about trying deterministic control of weather. Just like the <a href="http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/C5c.html" rel="nofollow">oft-asked</a> "Could we stop a hurricane with a nuclear bomb?" situation, in natural systems it is generally extremely difficult to control large mass and energy fluxes <i>quickly</i> with small inputs. One exception to this would be cloud seeding, where a relatively minor perturbation metaphorically tips a metastable system (water-saturated cloud) over a transition point to a different state. Regarding CO2, as you know, that's a matter of affecting the statistical distribution of weather over very long times, not trying to decide whether we want it to be warmer next week. Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-91627661722629635052015-05-26T15:49:15.786-05:002015-05-26T15:49:15.786-05:00I'd have to agree with Anon@3.17. I'd imag...I'd have to agree with Anon@3.17. I'd imagine much of proper weather control would involve finding systems at tipping points, and give them (relatively) subtle nudges to push weather towards a more desirable outcome.<br /><br />In other news, stay dry out there in Houston.Anzelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11518178405267774499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-10763924958877601482015-05-26T15:17:07.538-05:002015-05-26T15:17:07.538-05:00I don't agree with the conclusion in your last...I don't agree with the conclusion in your last statement. We control all kinds of large energy flows with very low-energy control systems. E.g., a municipal power plant can be controlled pretty well with a laptop. And (relatively) small amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can/are significantly mess with the weather.<br /><br />Maybe it was implicit that the "engineering" has to be done in a controlled way? In that case, I think it is more about complexity of the system and not the scale of energy flows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-21762785224005367162015-05-26T09:22:42.287-05:002015-05-26T09:22:42.287-05:00nice (again)!
I vote for more back-of-a-stamp ever...nice (again)!<br />I vote for more back-of-a-stamp everyday physics examples :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com