A PROCESS OR METHOD TO REDUCE/MITIGATE CLIMATE CHANGE BY KILLING HURRICANES
1) That decreases carbon dioxide and increases oxygen in the atmosphere.
2) Reduces thermal expansion of the ocean.
A PROCESS OR METHOD TO REPLACE THE OXYGEN REMOVED FROM THE ATMOSPHERE WHEN HYDROCARBONS ARE BURNED BY KILLING HURRICANES
The idea of killing hurricanes to reduce climate change is patent pending as a new use for a existing patented machine.
A important part of any climate change solution is the ability to turn it off. This process/method can be instantly turned-off with out any residual effects.
Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises. ( see the article at the bottom of this page )
Practical climate change solutions must reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and in the process increase the amount of oxygen we have to breath. Photosynthesis is a important part of the solution. This method to reduce/mitigate climate change increases photosynthesis.
Also practical climate change solutions must reduce thermal expansion of the oceans. This method to reduce/mitigate climate change will reduce the amount of heat in the ocean.
REDUCING GLOBAL WARMING
Hurricanes contribute to global warming in eight primary ways.
1.) Normally water evaporating from the ocean would cool the ocean but the high wind in a hurricane prevents this. The high wind creates a layer of spray, evaporation occurs in the layer of spray not in the ocean. The air in the spray zone is saturated with water vapor preventing almost all evaporation from the ocean. Also when the wind driven rain hit’s the ocean it explodes and turns into spray. Because of the high hurricane wind the cooling effect of evaporation happens above the ocean not in it.
2.) Hurricanes cause huge amounts deforestation. The dead trees killed by hurricanes release there carbon to the atmosphere. Also trees are earths natural shade. When hurricanes kill them it causes the earth to get hotter in the daytime than release the extra heat at night contributing to global warming. The dead trees killed by hurricanes don't do any photosynthesis. Photosynthesis soaks up heat from sunlight, the trees also soaks up carbon and water vapor from the atmosphere all of which contribute to global warming. ( see the brief article at the bottom of this page )
3.) Hurricanes are the ultimate dehumidifier, the fuel for a hurricane is humid air. When hurricanes dehumidify the air it allows more sun to hit the ocean causing it to warm up. Humid air is a natural shade for the ocean. When the air in a hurricane eyewall rises it dehumidifies, than it comes rushing down as a huge hot dry high pressure allowing the sun to bake the ocean unrestricted by the normally high humidity above the it.
4.) A hurricane transfers energy from the hot humid air to the ocean thought friction between the water and the wind. The big waves and the storm surge eventually turn into heat.
5.) The rain from a hurricane falling on the ocean causes the water to warm up. The massive amount of rain drops moving at a high velocity colliding with the ocean causes it to warm up.
6.) The waves, storm surge and rain from hurricanes causes massive amounts of erosion blocking sunlight to plankton. When plankton does not get enough sunlight it does not soak up heat and carbon and make oxygen. The sunlight that should go to the plankton gets soaked up by the dark muddy water making the ocean hotter than it should be. As a result less plankton and dead fish sink to the bottom of the ocean storing less carbon.
7) Hurricanes wipeout huge areas of saltwater swamps. Saltwater swamps provide shade for the ocean, also saltwater swamps provide habitat for wild life. Bird droppings feed the plankton and plankton feeds the fish.
8) Hurricanes make huge waves, when sunlight hit’s a flat ocean a lot of it is reflected back up, but when sunlight hit’s a big wave almost none of it is reflected, it all goes into the ocean heating it up.
It becomes a vicious cycle. Hurricanes heat the ocean which causes more hurricanes that heat the ocean even more. The easiest solution to our global warming problem is to get rid of hurricanes.
Hurricanes are big and powerful, there is no way humans can out muscle them. But we may be able to out smart them.
I use the analogy of humans killing elephants.
Elephants are big and powerful just like hurricanes, there is no way a human will ever be able to kill one by out muscling it, but we kill them all the time with guns or poison. If we give a elephant a tiny amount of botulism it will die, if we make a tiny hole with a bullet in a elephants heart it will die. The bullet and botulism are catalysts that cause something big to happen. We out smart them, we find there weak spot.
Hurricanes are the same way, we may be able to out smart them and hit them in there weak spot.
The weak spot of a hurricane is the hurricane eyewall. The hurricane eyewall is the engine/heart of the hurricane, if it is destroyed the hurricanes dies.
My patented machine is designed to act as a catalyst in the destruction of the hurricane eyewall.
There is a exact balance between the hurricane eye and the hurricane eyewall, Increasing the air pressure in localized parts of the hurricane eye will cause the hurricane to tear itself apart. It is the primary goal of this machine to remove the central low pressure of the hurricane system, the machine would accomplish this ambitious task in four primary ways. 1) The machine would divert the hurricane eyewall into and away from the hurricane eye. 2) The machine would slow down the air in the eyewall allowing the low pressure in the eye to suck it in. 3) The machine would mechanically blow air from the eyewall to the eye. 4) The machine would cause different parts of the eyewall to turn at different rates.
When the humid air from the eyewall goes into the eye it expands in the low pressure both vertically and horizontally, it slows down, it raises the air pressure in localized parts of the eye, as the air pressure in localized parts of the eye goes up the wind in localized parts of the eyewall turns less. (see drawing 4) Also when the humid air from the eyewall enters the low pressure in the eye it expands and cools, convection occurs in the eye, a strong draft is established into the eye and the hurricane will implode.
The machine is a ship, (see drawings below) The upper part of the ship is a V shaped
turbo charged wedge, each side of the V has three fan-tubes stacked vertically. Inside
each fan-tube there are three high speed fans. The fans are powered by electric motors.
The fans are made out of light weight, high strength, carbon fiber material. The fans are
similar in design to the fans in jet engines. The fans have a diameter of 30 meters. The
fans accelerate the air to 1900 km/hour.
In the front of the machine there is a air-intake. The air-intake is attached to the fantubes.
In the rear of the machine are the nozzles. The nozzles attach to the fan-tubes. The
nozzles pivot left to right, and open and close. The nozzles help control the machine
when it is in the eyewall.
In the top rear of the machine is the rear-wing, the rear-wing pivots up and down.
There are five partially submersible torpedo shaped hulls, water in the hulls adds ballast
to the ship. On each hull there are electric powered rotating thrusters. The thrusters rotate
360 degrees. The thrusters move the ship sideways when it is in the eyewall.
There are diesel power generators, the generators provide electric power to the fans and
thrusters. The generators are located low in the hulls for added ballast.
There are side-wings, the side-wings help prevent the eyewall from washing over the
METHOD OF OPERATION
Turn the fans on. With the front of the ship facing the wind use the thrusters to move
the ship sideways through the eyewall into the hurricane eye. After the machine gets into the
eye the testing equipment should be deployed. (c in drawing 3 and 4) The machine starts
working from the center of the storm and moves out into the eyewall. With the fans
turned on and the rear wing angled down, use the thrusters to move the ship sideways into
the eyewall. (drawing 3) Hold the machine in that position until the eye and eyewall begin
to become distorted. The wedge shape of the machine and the air coming out of the
nozzles diverts the eyewall into and away from the center. The rear wing forces air from
above the machine down into the extreme low pressure created when the eyewall is
HOLDING THE MACHINE IN THE EYEWALL - The air being sucked into
the air-intake pulls the machine forward. The air being blown out of the nozzles pushes
the machine forward, The thrusters push the machine forward and sideways. The nozzles
pivot left to right and open and close to help control the machine.
When the eyewall and eye begin to become distorted move the machine further into the
eyewall. ( drawing 4 ) A continuous connection should be maintained between the
machine and the eye. Keep moving the machine further into the eyewall. The eyewall on
the upwind side of the machine turns at a greater rate than the eyewall on the down wind
side of the machine. ( g and h in drawing 4 )
As the eyewall enters the eye it expands in the low pressure, the eyewall turns into the
eye. The diverted eyewall moves across the eye eventually crashing into the inside of the
eyewall causing breakouts in the eyewall. (f in drawing 4) Breakouts are areas of eyewall
that stop turning. Breakouts block the incoming air that feeds the eyewall and deprive the
eyewall of fuel.
As the air from the eyewall enters the low pressure in the distorted eye it expands both
vertically and horizontally, the air cools, convection occurs in the eye, a strong draft is
established into the eye, and the hurricane implodes. Maybe? All that would be left is a
big thunderstorm out in the middle of the ocean. If the storm reforms hit it again.
Another important effect of the machine is cooling the sinking warm air in the eye at sea level.
When the eyewall is sucked into the air intake of the machine it expands and cools, when the eyewall is forced down into the V behind the machine it expands and cools, and when the eyewall is diverted into the low pressure in the eye it expands and cools.
Next said cool air is pushed by the sinking air in the eye into the layer of spray at sea level in the eyewall reducing the evaporation in said layer of spray cutting off the fuel for the hurricane.
By using the hurricanes own forces, the wind of the eyewall, the central low pressure,
the humid air, and the structure of the storm, combined with this machine it might be
possible to stop hurricanes from wrecking large parts of America.
This machine and method of operation are designed to get rid of the small percentage of
hurricanes that are forecasted to make landfall, hurricanes that are not forecasted to make
landfall should be left alone. ( see drawings below)
Note - Anyone that tells you there is some beneficial effect from hurricanes when they make landfall , or the solution to our hurricane problem is to build stronger houses is crazy. When a hurricane makes landfall it causes massive death and destruction to people, propriety, trees, wildlife and the environment in general.
Carbon Capture & Sequestration
This article was written and published by Tulane University
Katrina Severely Damaged Coastal Forests
Researchers led by Jeffrey Chambers, assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology at Tulane, have determined that the losses inflicted by Hurricane Katrina on Gulf Coast forest trees are enough to cancel out a year's worth of new tree biomass (trunks, branches and foliage) growth in other parts of the country.
Using satellite data provide by NASA, ecological field investigations and statistical analysis, the investigators estimate that 320 million large trees were killed or severely damaged by the August 2005 storm.
"The carbon that will be released as these trees decompose is enough to cancel out an entire year's worth of net gain by all U.S. forests. And this is only from a single storm," says Chambers, lead author of an article, "Hurricane Katrina's Carbon Footprint on Gulf Coast Forests," detailing the team's findings in the Nov. 16 issue of the journal Science.
"As the Earth's climate warms, evidence is mounting that hurricanes, tornados and frontal systems will gain in energy, producing more violent storms and stronger winds," according to Chambers. "Increased wind disturbance will cause more tree mortality and damage, and this dead wood will release additional carbon to the atmosphere, potentially amplifying global warming."
Investigators estimate that 320 million large trees were killed or severely damaged by Katrina, healthy forests play a vital role in removing carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, and are thus important in the battle against global warming. These young forests are valued as "carbon sinks," removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in growing vegetation, Chambers explains.
The total amount of carbon stored in a forest is the result of the growth of new trees and existing trees, balanced with tree death from age and disturbance. Dead trees and downed wood decompose and release carbon to the atmosphere. Thus an increase in disturbance frequency, for example from more powerful storms, can tilt this balance toward the loss side, reversing the storing process and causing forests to become a source of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
"This increase in carbon emissions can enhance global warming in what is termed by scientists as a positive feedback mechanism," says Chambers. "Increased carbon dioxide warms the climate, causing more intense storms and elevated tree mortality, releasing yet more carbon dioxide and further warming the climate."
The study, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy's National Institute for Climatic Change Research, was carried out by researchers at Tulane and the University of New Hampshire. Many of the methods used were first developed as part of a NASA Large-Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment in Amazonia led by Chambers.
Atmospheric Oxygen Levels Fall As Carbon Dioxide Rises
Written by; Mike Johnston
According to a study conducted by scientists from the Scripps Institute there is less oxygen in the atmosphere today than there used to be. The ongoing study, which accumulated and interpreted data from NOAA monitoring stations all over the world, has been running from 1989 to the present. It monitored both the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the decline in oxygen. The conclusion of that 20 year study is that, as carbon dioxide (produced primarily by burning fossil fuels) accumulates in the atmosphere, available oxygen is decreasing.
Carbon dioxide seems to be almost the total focus of attention in the climate change model as it exists today. After reviewing the results of this study and talking with Dr. Ralph Keeling (one of the lead scientists on the study), it seemed to me that the consequences of atmospheric oxygen depletion should be included in any discussion of atmospheric change.
In order to make sure that I was interpreting the data correctly I asked Dr. Keeling to clarify a few points. I asked him if the rise in carbon dioxide levels and the decrease in oxygen levels were proportional to each other in the sense that this would indicate that the decrease in atmospheric oxygen was a direct result of the buildup of carbon dioxide. His response:
It is roughly true that the oxygen depletion is equivalent to a displacement by carbon dioxide. But it is not exactly true. First, some of the carbon dioxide produced has been absorbed by the oceans. This process involves inorganic chemical reactions which have no effect on O2. Second, the O2:C combustion ratio of a fossil-fuel depends on the hydrogen content. The ratio varies from about 1.2 for coal, 1.45 for liquid fuels, and 2.0 for natural gas. Taking these factors together, we are losing nearly three O2 molecules for each CO2 molecule that accumulates in the air.
We are losing three oxygen molecules in our atmosphere for each carbon dioxide molecule that is produced when we burn fossil fuels. Studies of ice cores and recent data from direct atmospheric sampling have shown that there has been a 30% increase in carbon dioxide since the beginning of the industrial age. With that in mind I asked Dr. Keeling how much oxygen has been depleted from the atmosphere in that same time frame. He responded that, "A reasonable estimate for how much O2 has been lost since the beginning of the industrial revolution can be based on the estimated loss due to fossil-fuel emissions, which can be calculated from records of the amount of each fuel type burnt and its combustion ratio. Such records are not readily available online, but I have figures handy:
Total loss since start of industrial revolution
O2 depletion from fossil-fuel burning through 2004: 35.2 Pmol
CO2 depletion from fossil-fuel burning through 2004: 26.3 Pmol
Estimated O2 content of preindustrial atmosphere: 37050 Pmol
1 Pmol = 10^15 mol
"So the total estimated industrial O2 depletion on Jan 1, 2005 would have been (35.3)/(37050)x100 = 0.095% of the preindustrial amount."
"For the past 15 years, we have direct measurements of the decrease. But the observations before 1990 aren't good enough to draw inferences. Hence the estimate based on industrial emissions is about the best we can come up with."
Think about that. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution we have removed .095% of the oxygen in our atmosphere. True, that is only a tenth of one percent of the total supply, but oxygen makes up only 20% of the atmosphere. I looked up safety rules regarding oxygen concentrations and according to OSHA rules on atmospheres in closed environments, "if the oxygen level in such an environment falls below 19.5% it is oxygen deficient, putting occupants of the confined space at risk of losing consciousness and death." What happens if the world's atmospheric levels of oxygen fall to 19.5% or lower? Are we all going to have to carry little blue oxygen tanks with us to survive? Not a pleasant possibility.
Plants and certain bacteria take in carbon dioxide, combine it with water to form glucose and produce oxygen as a byproduct in the photosynthesis reaction. The current increase in carbon dioxide levels in our atmosphere indicates that this cycle is no longer in balance. It shows that we have reached the point where the biosphere of the planet can no longer process all of the carbon dioxide that we are producing.
When hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline are burned in air, gasoline (C8H18) and oxygen (O2) join in an explosive reaction. This reaction releases the energy which we use to propel our vehicles. The two main products of this chemical reaction are carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor (H2O). The chemical reaction for the combustion of gasoline (chemical name: isooctane) looks like this:
C8H18 + 12.5 O2 --> 8 CO2 + 9 H2O
This mix of CO2 and H2O vapor are the primary gases which come out of your tailpipe. Interestingly, these two byproducts are also the two things which plants need to take in to produce glucose and release oxygen. As long as the environment is in balance no excess carbon dioxide or water vapor will build up. If the environment cannot absorb the amount of these two gases that we produce on the other hand they would remain in the environment as a measurable surplus. I wondered if this water that was being created by burning hydrocarbons could be contributing to the rise I the planets oceans in a meaningful way.
I asked Dr. Keeling for his opinion on this possibility. He said, "I agree qualitatively with your arguments. Some time ago I also calculated the sea- level rise that would be caused by the water generated as a bi-product of fossil-fuel burning. I got quite a small number. I can make a similar calculation here:
O2 lost into forming water: 35.2 - 26.3 = 8.9 Pmol.
Amount of H2O formed: 8.9x2 = 17.8 Pmol
Volume occupied by water formed:
(17.8x10(15) mol)(18g/mol)/(1000000g/m3) = 3.2x10(11) m3.
Resulting sea-level rise (taking ocean area of 3.6x10(14)m2):
3.2x10(11)/3.6x10(14) = 9x10(-4) m
So the effect is only ~1 millimeter since the industrial revolution. This is small compared to the other factors that have contributed to sea level rise over this period."
In conclusion, it seems that the depletion of atmospheric oxygen will continue until such time as we stop burning hydrocarbons faster than the environment can absorb the byproducts of the reaction and replenish the oxygen. The only solution to this problem is to determine beyond the shadow of a doubt just how much carbon dioxide that our atmosphere and environment in general can absorb and process back into oxygen and then limit our burning of carbon containing fuels so that we stay within that “safe zone” and using non carbon based energy sources to make up for what we can no longer produce via fossil fuels.
The problem with this solution is that, in order to keep our economy cooking along, we need to produce and consume ever increasing amounts of energy and so we can’t stop using fossil fuels, including coal, without a lot of economic pain because there currently are no alternatives in place to pick up the slack. The sequestration of carbon dioxide by pumping it under the ground would only dispose of the carbon dioxide with unknown consequences, but would do nothing to stop the depletion of oxygen from the atmosphere. Dr. Keeling agreed that carbon sequestration would do nothing to stop oxygen depletion but reassured me that "... the O2 loss is too small to be much of a concern."
We currently make estimates of how many years we have left before excess carbon dioxide becomes a bigger problem than it already is but we aren’t really sure of their accuracy. However, to the best of my knowledge, we don’t have estimates of how long it might be, if oxygen continues to be depleted at its current rate, until it might become a problem. After all, while most of us may be willing to wait out the effects of excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for a time just to see if we really do get warmer weather and more abundant crops out of the deal; how may of us want to wait and see how little oxygen we can survive on?
This machine and method of operation are designed to reduce the devastation caused by hurricane wind and storm surge, it will not reduce the devastation caused by tropical storm rains.