Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Meteorologist)   Iowan's advice to ride out a tornado: a) Stay low to the ground, b) Get to the shelter, c) Drop a bomb on it   (messengernews.net ) divider line
    More: Dumbass, tornadoes, iowan  
•       •       •

2452 clicks; posted to Geek » on 21 Mar 2012 at 11:59 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-03-21 08:20:56 AM  
We, with our incalculable offsetting force, could try out the experiment in the Kansas or Nebraska plains without much damage to the terrain

I wholly support the idea of bombing the shiat out of Kansas AND Nebraska in the interest of science.
 
2012-03-21 08:25:37 AM  
d) Put a bird on it!
 
2012-03-21 08:37:01 AM  

Rev. Skarekroe: d) Put a bird on it!


Ha!
 
2012-03-21 09:13:01 AM  

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: I wholly support the idea of bombing the shiat out of Kansas AND Nebraska in the interest of science.


Me too! But...

...being an actual meteorologist (ok, I write software but my degree is in meteorology and I work for the National Weather Service), I know this idea has been kicked around a few times. The problem you run into is that tornadoes and hurricanes have so much energy in them that dropping a conventional bomb or two on them isn't going to have much offsetting effect. You'd basically have to nuke the hell out of either storm to get the bomb blast you need to weaken or destroy them.

So, let's say we want to nuke the shiat out of Nebraska or some random Caribbean islands, the other consideration is that you have to have a pretty precise determination of WHERE to drop that nuke. For a hurricane, do you drop it in the eye? Do you drop it in the path? For a tornado, how do you even know where the path is going to be, the thing moves so quickly and violently that the nuke you drop might miss the mark and be totally ineffective.
 
2012-03-21 09:38:54 AM  

SurfaceTension: You'd basically have to nuke the hell out of either storm to get the bomb blast you need to weaken or destroy them.


Just say no to nuking storms (new window)
 
2012-03-21 09:57:46 AM  
Well, what's more American than that?
 
2012-03-21 10:23:06 AM  
Dear Sir,
As a naval officer I abhor the implication that the Royal Navy is a haven for cannibalism. It is well known that we now have the problem relatively under control, and that it is the RAF who now suffer the largest casualties in this area. And what do you think the Argylls ate in Aden. Arabs?

Yours etc.
Captain B.J. Smethwick
in a white wine sauce with shallots, mushrooms and garlic.
 
2012-03-21 12:01:59 PM  
blog.stackoverflow.com
 
2012-03-21 12:09:21 PM  
I'm not sure it would actually work in practice, but I would pay to see it tested.
 
2012-03-21 12:11:50 PM  

SurfaceTension: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: I wholly support the idea of bombing the shiat out of Kansas AND Nebraska in the interest of science.

Me too! But...

...being an actual meteorologist (ok, I write software but my degree is in meteorology and I work for the National Weather Service), I know this idea has been kicked around a few times. The problem you run into is that tornadoes and hurricanes have so much energy in them that dropping a conventional bomb or two on them isn't going to have much offsetting effect. You'd basically have to nuke the hell out of either storm to get the bomb blast you need to weaken or destroy them.

So, let's say we want to nuke the shiat out of Nebraska or some random Caribbean islands, the other consideration is that you have to have a pretty precise determination of WHERE to drop that nuke. For a hurricane, do you drop it in the eye? Do you drop it in the path? For a tornado, how do you even know where the path is going to be, the thing moves so quickly and violently that the nuke you drop might miss the mark and be totally ineffective.


That's just what we need. A nuclear tornado.

Hmmm... Sounds like a good movie plot...

/obscure?
 
2012-03-21 12:14:37 PM  

DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: We, with our incalculable offsetting force, could try out the experiment in the Kansas or Nebraska plains without much damage to the terrain

I wholly support the idea of bombing the shiat out of Kansas AND Nebraska in the interest of science.


wearscience.com
 
2012-03-21 12:17:49 PM  
To the editor:

I was watching the History Channel the other day, as I often do, and I saw a show about Operation Fortitude. We totally faked out those Hun bastards and caught them with their pants down. We've never tried that with tornadoes, but I think it's something worth considering. We could take all those old trailers nobody wants anymore and set up fake trailer parks out in the middle of nowhere, or perhaps near Marysville. Publicize the hell out of them. Wherever you go, strike up a conversation about them and speak with a louder than normal voice, "gee, I hope none of those new TRAILER PARKS done git destroyed by no TORNADOES". Tornadoes are bound to hear about them eventually and will target them accordingly... but the joke will be on them!
 
2012-03-21 12:24:03 PM  
A hurricane: fuggedaboutit. The amount of energy those things express and over what area is greater than most of us could imagine. Nuclear weapons-per-second type of yield is being put out by a good-sized hurricane.

A tornado: more practical, but still they cause conventional explosions all the time (electrical substations and whatnot) that don't seem to have any effect. Plus, while it might be nice to knock out one, sparing town A you still have the system that spawned it which can then wreck towns B thru G.

cgraves67: I'm not sure it would actually work in practice, but I would pay to see it tested.


Like the guy said: "Nothing ventured, nothing gained."
 
2012-03-21 12:25:16 PM  
Iern Talence Ferlay laughs at such crude methods.
 
2012-03-21 12:32:11 PM  
Some of our scientists should be able to determine how much counteracting force would be required to interrupt the wind force.

Paging Dr. Scientist! Paging Dr. Scientist!
 
2012-03-21 12:43:27 PM  
In all fairness, if Mythbusters has taught me anything, it's that you can solve most problems with high explosives.
 
2012-03-21 12:43:45 PM  
this dumbass Iowan does not go hide in the basement with the women and children. I go out and stare at the beautiful swirling sky, raising my hands in the air, and praising cthulhu. the best is when the sky turns green. oh yes oh yes.
 
2012-03-21 12:45:48 PM  
 
2012-03-21 12:52:31 PM  
Maybe I missed it, but no one here has yet pointed out that storms actually serve a fundamental function: Transferring energy from one area to the other, I wonder what the long term climate impact would be if we actually could and did disrupt storms, anyone?
 
2012-03-21 12:54:22 PM  
Nothing tried, nothing gained and think of the benefits if it works.

farm1.static.flickr.com
 
2012-03-21 01:00:55 PM  
content.internetvideoarchive.com

IT......COULD......WORK!
 
2012-03-21 01:11:25 PM  
As an admiral who came up through the ranks more times than you've had hot dinners, I wish to join my husband O.W.A Giveaway in condemning this shoddy misrepresentation of our modern navy. The British Navy is one of the finest and most attractive and butchest fighting forces in the world. I love those white flared trousers and the feel of rough blue serge on those pert little buttocks...
 
2012-03-21 01:16:16 PM  
I don't think they thought this cunning plan all the way through...
http://youtu.be/MjbFEvsvWwI (new window)
 
2012-03-21 01:41:08 PM  
Given the fondness for nuking things in the 50's and 60's I'm kind of amazed we never tried it.
 
2012-03-21 01:45:35 PM  
FUS RO DAH?
 
2012-03-21 01:50:27 PM  

Mr. Breeze: SurfaceTension: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: I wholly support the idea of bombing the shiat out of Kansas AND Nebraska in the interest of science.

Me too! But...

...being an actual meteorologist (ok, I write software but my degree is in meteorology and I work for the National Weather Service), I know this idea has been kicked around a few times. The problem you run into is that tornadoes and hurricanes have so much energy in them that dropping a conventional bomb or two on them isn't going to have much offsetting effect. You'd basically have to nuke the hell out of either storm to get the bomb blast you need to weaken or destroy them.

So, let's say we want to nuke the shiat out of Nebraska or some random Caribbean islands, the other consideration is that you have to have a pretty precise determination of WHERE to drop that nuke. For a hurricane, do you drop it in the eye? Do you drop it in the path? For a tornado, how do you even know where the path is going to be, the thing moves so quickly and violently that the nuke you drop might miss the mark and be totally ineffective.

That's just what we need. A nuclear tornado.

Hmmm... Sounds like a good movie plot...

/obscure?


It's OK. Firefighters will show up as will some dude with a tanker full of diesel, then they'll prevent a meltdown.
 
2012-03-21 02:04:23 PM  

Mr. Breeze: That's just what we need. A nuclear tornado.

Hmmm... Sounds like a good movie plot...

/obscure?


I actually saw its TV premiere back in 2002... it prepared me for a lifetime of Saturday SyFy films and realization that things like Rifftrax exist.

/Junior-year met major
//Would also advocate KS/NE "statewide testing facilities"
 
2012-03-21 02:07:30 PM  
Last I checked, Iowans preferred method of protecting themselves from tornadoes is to simply avoid weather forecasts on the internet and television and ignore actual warnings.
 
2012-03-21 02:23:01 PM  
Didn't the Gap Band propose this in the eighties?
 
2012-03-21 02:57:24 PM  
Yes, it would work.
But because the tornado is caused by the suction of an updraft, to disrupt it you have to supply air to that updraft. So the bomb has to be full of air. A lot of air. Liquified air, because we can't wait for frozen air to melt.

But that updraft is sucking up tons of air, so you actually have to keep hitting that part of the storm with air bombs until the storm stops.

However, it is hard to do that.

Another way to deal with the situation is to stop the updraft. The updraft is due to differences in air temperatures. Setting off a nuclear bomb close enough to the storm will flash all of the water in the storm into water vapor and greatly reduce the temperature differences, by making it all very hot.

So if a tornado is approaching your neighborhood, a large enough nuclear bomb outside the neighborhood can save you from the tornado. You'll be in a sauna, and your roof shingles will melt off, but the tornado will be stopped. But you'll have to rebuild the playground in whatever park the bomb was set off in.
 
2012-03-21 03:16:15 PM  
Bombing tornadoes is so passe, why not use powerful lasers- one to superheat the cold stuff, and one to supercool the hot stuff? Worst case it crosses the streams, or reverses tornadic polarity into an ultra dynamo vortex black hole. For safety it will blast out VH's Don't Tell Me (What Love Can Do) 2mins prior to ignition, and during.

/Iowan
 
2012-03-21 03:21:51 PM  
i99.photobucket.com

A bomb?!
 
2012-03-21 03:22:08 PM  
If bombing a tornado destroys it, I would like to suggest a cheaper, simpler, very modest solution, that could cost under $5 a pop.

Landmines.

There's hundreds of millions of them scattered around the war zones and former war zones and civil war and insurgency sites of the world despite efforts to ban their manufacture and use as barbarous. Some of them cost less than $3.00 and were designed to look like plastic toys to encourage children and other people to pick them up. Their manufacture and use is barbarous.

Mine tornado alley and you don't even have to worry about a bomb going astray. You'll know exactly where they are whenever a conservative steps on one. As a sop to the fearful, I would suggest marking the mine fields to keep pedestrians away and situating them in useless lots of land, such as any county that votes for Santorum or Gingrich in the GOP primaries this year.

God bless the late Princess Diana for her work against landmines. (Canada helped, although I doubt if the Stephen Harper Government of Canada(TM) would help today.)

If you landmine a large enough belt of tornado alley, you could make tornadoes a thing of the past and provide hours of innocent amusement for Farkers of an anti-War bent, or not.

Thank you and you're welcome. i am glad to be of assistance, especially if it involves land mining Kansas. That will teach them to go from one of the most progressive to one of the most reactionary states in less than 100 years.

There are too many states nowadays. Get rid of one of the Carolinas, one of the Dakotas, and one other Mid-West state, preferably Nebraska or Kansas, because they are dull, rectilinear and flat. I'd also suggest getting rid of Saskatchewan, but I like the outlandish name.
 
2012-03-21 03:33:09 PM  
Even if this would technically work, it seems like the need to have nukes readily deployable all around the Midwest just for tornado-busting and the PR nightmare that would be dropping nukes on american soil would ruin it.

Also, most tornadoes seem to kill 0-5 people unless they're really bad or in a populated area, the latter of which would negate a nuke anyway and the former would call into question whether you were just doing more damage to the population at large via radiation.
 
2012-03-21 04:01:56 PM  
Has anyone suggested that farking with nature is dumb?

"Lets disrupt weather systems! What could possiby wrong!"... "Possibly! What could Possibly go wrong..."
 
2012-03-21 04:08:07 PM  
external.ak.fbcdn.net

/approves
 
2012-03-21 04:09:38 PM  
Force field generators for every midwestern town. In most cases they'd only have to go a couple of hundred feet up - flick a switch and Bobbitt that biatch.
 
2012-03-21 04:26:06 PM  
What they need is to sink, stall, or freeze a large pocket of air at just the right moment. That or otherwise disrupt the existing current on a massive scale.
Simply making a shockwave and throwing shrapnel around isn't going to do much.
 
2012-03-21 04:38:47 PM  

brantgoose: If bombing a tornado destroys it, I would like to suggest a cheaper, simpler, very modest solution, that could cost under $5 a pop.

Landmines.

There's hundreds of millions of them scattered around the war zones and former war zones and civil war and insurgency sites of the world despite efforts to ban their manufacture and use as barbarous. Some of them cost less than $3.00 and were designed to look like plastic toys to encourage children and other people to pick them up. Their manufacture and use is barbarous.

Mine tornado alley and you don't even have to worry about a bomb going astray. You'll know exactly where they are whenever a conservative steps on one. As a sop to the fearful, I would suggest marking the mine fields to keep pedestrians away and situating them in useless lots of land, such as any county that votes for Santorum or Gingrich in the GOP primaries this year.

God bless the late Princess Diana for her work against landmines. (Canada helped, although I doubt if the Stephen Harper Government of Canada(TM) would help today.)

If you landmine a large enough belt of tornado alley, you could make tornadoes a thing of the past and provide hours of innocent amusement for Farkers of an anti-War bent, or not.

Thank you and you're welcome. i am glad to be of assistance, especially if it involves land mining Kansas. That will teach them to go from one of the most progressive to one of the most reactionary states in less than 100 years.

There are too many states nowadays. Get rid of one of the Carolinas, one of the Dakotas, and one other Mid-West state, preferably Nebraska or Kansas, because they are dull, rectilinear and flat. I'd also suggest getting rid of Saskatchewan, but I like the outlandish name.


I enjoy reading your comments.

BUT!!! That statement is going to be sent to friends. Very damned funny! Thanks!

\\I think you are weirder than me.
 
2012-03-21 05:36:30 PM  

Rev. Skarekroe: d) Put a bird on it!


www.cycloneathletictraining.com
 
2012-03-21 06:02:25 PM  
Came for sparkly, ass-kicking bald eagles.

/disappointed
//Nuking the absolute and utter shiat out of the midwest would cheer me up, though!
 
2012-03-21 07:13:00 PM  

SurfaceTension: DirtyDeadGhostofEbenezerCooke: I wholly support the idea of bombing the shiat out of Kansas AND Nebraska in the interest of science.

Me too! But...

...being an actual meteorologist (ok, I write software but my degree is in meteorology and I work for the National Weather Service), I know this idea has been kicked around a few times. The problem you run into is that tornadoes and hurricanes have so much energy in them that dropping a conventional bomb or two on them isn't going to have much offsetting effect. You'd basically have to nuke the hell out of either storm to get the bomb blast you need to weaken or destroy them.

So, let's say we want to nuke the shiat out of Nebraska or some random Caribbean islands, the other consideration is that you have to have a pretty precise determination of WHERE to drop that nuke. For a hurricane, do you drop it in the eye? Do you drop it in the path? For a tornado, how do you even know where the path is going to be, the thing moves so quickly and violently that the nuke you drop might miss the mark and be totally ineffective.


I see your point.

Perhaps, instead of trying to hit the tornado, we should let the tornado hit the bomb. Lay out a grid of nuclear landmines with low air pressure triggers, covering Nebraska and Kansas in sufficient density to ensure early, frequent and repeated experiments

...for SCIENCE!
 
2012-03-21 09:57:58 PM  
I reason that depending on the force required that a bomb could interrupt the cause and effect of the wind turbulence and by such an interruption knock the power out of the turbulence.

i44.tinypic.com
 
2012-03-21 10:27:22 PM  
P.S. I am not a crackpot.
 
2012-03-22 12:00:34 AM  
As an Iowan (from the saner Eastern part), I hope and pray that this is a joke the paper dusts off from time to time to fill out copy. It sounds a little familiar. Mrs. Deuce's family hails from Western Iowa however, and she assures me that not only is this real, it's actually a little more restrained then she expected.

/Says she doesn't think she knows him
//I read it in her uncle's voice, worked perfect
 
2012-03-22 01:24:53 PM  

WelldeadLink: Yes, it would work.
But because the tornado is caused by the suction of an updraft, to disrupt it you have to supply air to that updraft. So the bomb has to be full of air. A lot of air. Liquified air, because we can't wait for frozen air to melt.

But that updraft is sucking up tons of air, so you actually have to keep hitting that part of the storm with air bombs until the storm stops.

However, it is hard to do that.

Another way to deal with the situation is to stop the updraft. The updraft is due to differences in air temperatures. Setting off a nuclear bomb close enough to the storm will flash all of the water in the storm into water vapor and greatly reduce the temperature differences, by making it all very hot.

So if a tornado is approaching your neighborhood, a large enough nuclear bomb outside the neighborhood can save you from the tornado. You'll be in a sauna, and your roof shingles will melt off, but the tornado will be stopped. But you'll have to rebuild the playground in whatever park the bomb was set off in.


Goddamn, that's some good weed you've got there.
 
2012-03-22 02:20:28 PM  
build houses and structures to miami-dade code strangely absent

/or monolithic domes
//and for you people in 100 year flood plains- how bout elevating your house 10-20 feet so the waters ride around it
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report