Wall in the midwest; eliminate tornados

[Hazel M]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140623120320.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_science+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Science+News%29

 

Eliminate major tornados? Build walls around us? Even if we wanted to be walled in, would walls stop the action of winds with such suction powers? It had me agape, reading this. What am I missing? It sounds so ridiculous. Yet it merits publication in Science Daily?

 

Of course, there is the question of what else would it cut us off from weather-wise? Much-needed rain from the southwest? Snows from Canada? Cooling winds in hot August?

 

Oh, it isn't quite as bad as I envision it but it sounds so outlandish. Does anyone want to defend this idea?

[EdEarl]

Wall? How high and where will they be? Fairly small tornadoes do significant damage to high-rise buildings. What will these walls be made of, and how much will they cost? Would you extend walls further than tornado alley, because tornadoes can strike anywhere in the world, AFAIK.

I'd guess that making buildings tornado proof would be less expensive than criss-crossing either the world or tornado alley with walls to affect tornado occurrence.

[Ophiolite]

Eliminate major tornados?

It seems plausible. What do you find unlikely about it?

 

 

Build walls around us?

Have you actually read the article? Nowhere do they speak about building "walls around us". Three east-west walls are built across the mid-west. In what way is that "around us"?

 

 

Even if we wanted to be walled in, would walls stop the action of winds with such suction powers?

So, you haven't read the article. The walls stop the development of such winds before they have such powers.

 

 

It had me agape, reading this. What am I missing?

Everything of significance?

 

It sounds so ridiculous. Yet it merits publication in Science Daily?

So did plate tectonics, space travel and a successful English football team. (So, two out of three.)

 

Of course, there is the question of what else would it cut us off from weather-wise? Much-needed rain from the southwest? Snows from Canada? Cooling winds in hot August?

And that, apart form the economics, is the key question. Still, I see an opportunity for a couple doctorate theses.

[Tim the plumber]

So did plate tectonics, space travel and a successful English football team. (So, two out of three.)

Good one!

 

I can see a lot of cost of building a lot of walls before any slight reduction in risk happens.

 

Perhaps take 5% of the money you were going to spend on walls and make the buildings stronger. Build them out of concrete if required.

 

Is the idea of having deliberate warm zones where coal slag is spread out over a hill side or something which will get hotter and thus create a thermal on a small localized scale. This will allow a small cloud to form resulting in a small rain storm rather than having the wider landscape create a uniform heat which then causes a huge thunderstorm, with attendant tornadoes, but less often. Sort of a pressure relief valve.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Tim the plumber

[Hazel M]

I promise, Ophiolite, I did read the article. I am just expressing my initial reaction to it. It did get your attention. On the serious side, I am not sure it would work, knowing how tornados act and I think the money could be better spent just building more tornado-resistant buildings, including houses. And I do think no one living near the wall would appreciate how it cuts off moving air and moisture all year. E.g. I have lived in both Kansas City and St Louis. St Louis is beautiful with its "almost-forests" of trees along its streets and around its homes. But all those beautiful trees - I think - have one big disadvantage. St Louis does not get near the breezes and winds that Kansas City gets. Kansas City, being part of the plains, has fewer trees.

[Phi for All]

On the serious side, I am not sure it would work, knowing how tornados act and I think the money could be better spent just building more tornado-resistant buildings, including houses. And I do think no one living near the wall would appreciate how it cuts off moving air and moisture all year. E.g. I have lived in both Kansas City and St Louis. St Louis is beautiful with its "almost-forests" of trees along its streets and around its homes. But all those beautiful trees - I think - have one big disadvantage. St Louis does not get near the breezes and winds that Kansas City gets. Kansas City, being part of the plains, has fewer trees.

 

This still doesn't sound right. You say, "knowing how tornadoes act", but this design is to keep them from forming in the first place, so they have no chance to act like tornadoes.

 

Also, the walls don't "cut off" moving air and moisture. You can't "cut off" wind, you just redirect the energy so it doesn't lend itself to the formation of a tornado.

 

It helps to know that a tornado isn't a thing, it's an event, like fire. Certain circumstances have to be just right and if we can disrupt that the tornado event never forms.

[Hazel M]

This still doesn't sound right. You say, "knowing how tornadoes act", but this design is to keep them from forming in the first place, so they have no chance to act like tornadoes.

 

Also, the walls don't "cut off" moving air and moisture. You can't "cut off" wind, you just redirect the energy so it doesn't lend itself to the formation of a tornado.

 

It helps to know that a tornado isn't a thing, it's an event, like fire. Certain circumstances have to be just right and if we can disrupt that the tornado event never forms.

I am following your reasoning and it makes sense. But, how high up do those churning funnels start? A cold air mass meets a warm air mass and trouble starts forming. I forget now how high those walls were to be - 300 m? Is that high enough?

 

There is the question of can we build walls that can withstand tornadic winds? When I see - as I did acouple of years ago - whole trees including their root system lying where the tornado dropped them and piles of rubble where there used to be a house - the roof here, walls lying in scrap heaps, maybe one wall still standing; cars picked up, carried great distances and dropped upside down, I have trouble envisioning a wall stopping such fury.

 

But, of course, I'm forgetting the temperature corrections those walls are supposed to handle. Maybe. Or maybe I just have something against walls? A bit of both?

[Ophiolite]

Again, you seem to be missing the point. You ask if these walls will be able to withstand the forces of a tornado. They don't have to. If the hypothesis is correct the presence of the walls will prevent the formation of a tornado, so they will never have to withstand the force.

 

One of the issues of in terms of strength of structures in tornado country is that it is abysmal low. Timber framed houses can almost be pushed down by a body builder. (I'm quite confident I might loose the roof of my own home were it hit by a full blown tornado, but I'd like to see it demolish eighteen inch thick granite walls.)

 

At this point we need to return to one of my original points. I have not done the calculations, but a back-of the-cerebrum estimate suggests to me that it would far exceed the capacity of the US economy to implement this century. The idea, then, remains an interesting observation lacking any practical application.

[Hazel M]

Again, you seem to be missing the point. You ask if these walls will be able to withstand the forces of a tornado. They don't have to. If the hypothesis is correct the presence of the walls will prevent the formation of a tornado, so they will never have to withstand the force.

 

One of the issues of in terms of strength of structures in tornado country is that it is abysmal low. Timber framed houses can almost be pushed down by a body builder. (I'm quite confident I might loose the roof of my own home were it hit by a full blown tornado, but I'd like to see it demolish eighteen inch thick granite walls.)

 

At this point we need to return to one of my original points. I have not done the calculations, but a back-of the-cerebrum estimate suggests to me that it would far exceed the capacity of the US economy to implement this century. The idea, then, remains an interesting observation lacking any practical application.

Ah, I don't think I'm missing the point. Please read my OP again. I neither praised nor condemned the idea - although I confess I might have sounded condemning. I raised issues I wanted you all to talk about and that is exactly what you are doing, for which I thank you. I have seen tornados in action. I have not done any math to show why this experiment would or would not work. Can you show me why those walls would work if we could build them, assuming we'd want to? It's an open-ended question.

 

And by the way, why would they build the walls of granite? Granite is really expensive. Is there anything else cheaper but as strong?

[Ophiolite]

There are definite comprehension difficulties here. I shall assume the difficulties are all mine.

 

In post #7 you say "There is the question of can we build walls that can withstand tornadic winds?".

 

My understanding of English leads me to believe that you think the walls would have to withstand tornado force winds. If you did not think that then there would be know need to build them to that standard. Yet you ask, could they withstand the tornados? That means - that has to mean - you think these walls will be subject to tornado force winds.

 

But the whole point is that if we build the walls there will be no tornados, there will be no tornado force winds, and so the walls will not have to withstand tornado force winds. Yet you thought this would be a problem. That says to me you do not understand that building the walls eliminates the tornados and eliminates the need that they be able to withstand such forces.

 

.........

 

On the subject of granite walls I was not suggesting that the walls be built of granite. I was pointing out that even a flimsy 18" granite wall could withstand a tornado. A 300m tall wall would, I think have to be substantially wider than 18". And it need not be built of granite. I apologise for not making it obvious I was giving an example of a structure that could readily withstand tornado force winds.

 

By the way, the main thing that destroys property - as I understand it - is not the wind, but the pressure drop. Houses explode, they are not blown away.

[Hazel M]

All right. Let's see? "Could we build walls that will withstand tornadic winds?" You reminded me that there should be no tornadic winds if this plan works. I got that.

 

Granite walls? My misreading of what you meant. My apologies. But I do think granite would make a beautiful wall - if they can make them graffiti-proof.

 

I don't know how I am doing here. When I ask "could we" or "will it work", I am not saying I don't believe. I am not saying those who propose this are wrong. I am pointing the questions that immediately come to mind. Does that make sense?

 

By the way, I ask again because I think it is relevant to the plan of preventing the tornadic winds from forming. At what height do those masses meet and at what height do those funnels form? I think the masses collide at a great height. Is it higher than the planned wall height? The funnels, on the other hand, may be forming quite close to the ground. Do you know?

 

""By the way, the main thing that destroys property - as I understand it - is not the wind, but the pressure drop. Houses explode, they are not blown away.""

 

You are right, I believe. It's why I've always wondered if it wouldn't help to have windows open. Perhaps not as the unequal pressure is mostly in the air mass. Yes?

Edited June 25, 2014 by Hazel M

[Ophiolite]

You are a new member and perhaps unfamiliar with the rather direct way most regular members express their views. (We don't take prisoners.)

 

When a member says something is wrong it can seem like an attack: it is, but an attack on the assertion or idea, not an attack on the person. If I am remembering correctly you expressed surprise at the hypothesis. It seemed more than a simple "could this be true" and more like "surely this can't be true, it seems ridiculous". That is what I was responding to.

 

I don't know enough about atmospheric dynamics to comment on where the air masses work. I am reasonably assured from the report that the authors of the study do know and have concluded that 300m walls would work. (They give an excellent practical example from China that seemingly demonstrates this and was what initiated their hypothesis.)

 

Expressing doubt is very welcome and is a good solid, scientific approach. Just be careful not to make it sound like personal incredulity. (I don't understand this, so it must be wrong.) That will get jumped on every time.

 

If I was wishing to question the idea it would have been along the following lines:

 

Interesting proposal, but the following aspects concern me:

1. The economics of constructing these walls.

2. The impact on local ecologies and economies.

3. The possible negative effects on other climatic variables.

4. The unproven nature of the hypothesis - I should need to see a well modeled Monte Carlo assessment before I was halfway convinced.

5. The economics of constructing these walls.

6. See points 1 and 5.

[Phi for All]

They talk about these walls being 50 meters wide (thick), but designed to let normal amounts of air and moisture through. So they aren't solid, they're baffled somehow.

 

Snow fences are designed to prevent drifting snow across highways by causing drifting around the fence. They redirect the snow from places that can't handle it to places that can. Similarly, I think the tornado wall is forcing excessive winds and temperature differentials to occur where we can handle them, rather than letting them converge in areas that are likely to cause tornadoes to form.

 

I wonder if we could do a small-scale experiment using a bathtub drain and some blocking tiles. Would that show us anything relevant?

[Ophiolite]

So build a single mile of one of these walls would require moving tens time the volume of material in the Great Pyramid. And the author envisages several hundred miles.

 

He further estimates the cost at $160 million per mile. I now express personal incredulity (see post #12 for a discussion of the weakness of this approach). However, even if this is accurate, as we appear to need about 1,000 miles, then this is 160 billion dollars minimum! Not wholly unreasonable, but I guess I don't accept the $160 million figure. I need a QS style breakdown of numbers.

[Hazel M]

Interesting proposal, but the following aspects concern me:

1. The economics of constructing these walls.

2. The impact on local ecologies and economies.

3. The possible negative effects on other climatic variables.

4. The unproven nature of the hypothesis - I should need to see a well modeled Monte Carlo assessment before I was halfway convinced.

5. The economics of constructing these walls.

6. See points 1 and 5.

See # 2 and 3. Those are the points that first hit me. Are we chancing such walls also blocking weather advances that we need? How many people who live in those environs would lose their land? And, an unscientific but necessary consideration - some of us just have a great antipathy against walls. Forgive my being philosophical for just a moment but do you know the song "Don't fence me in?". I am inserting that last simply because it really is something that will come up and get great reaction if any entity ever decides to go ahead with this.

 

Cost? I notice that most of you are zeroing in on the cost. Nothing wrong with that. It's a very valid point. I can't even imagine it. It's probably the one thing that will stop these walls being built. But, if they are I trust those who do the job will consider all sides.

 

I'd enjoy a discussion with you about using the scientific approach vs including the human element but that's another topic. Better skip it.

 

I am off to see about those air masses. How many feet in 300 meters? Something short of 1,000?

They talk about these walls being 50 meters wide (thick), but designed to let normal amounts of air and moisture through. So they aren't solid, they're baffled somehow.

 

Snow fences are designed to prevent drifting snow across highways by causing drifting around the fence. They redirect the snow from places that can't handle it to places that can. Similarly, I think the tornado wall is forcing excessive winds and temperature differentials to occur where we can handle them, rather than letting them converge in areas that are likely to cause tornadoes to form.

 

I wonder if we could do a small-scale experiment using a bathtub drain and some blocking tiles. Would that show us anything relevant?

Thank you Phi. I missed that about the walls being permeable. I think you are saying the system could determine what kind of air mass was hitting the area and whether to let that cold January Canadian blast hit us or not. In other words, the proposal is based on knowing we have a tornadic system building up. Yes? As for choosing the area "where we can control" the winds, tornado alley isn't really an "alley. It covers a huge territory and tornadoes can hit anywhere within that space. So far as I know, there is no accurate prediction - well, on a case by case basis there is but the walls have to be built ahead of time.

 

It's quite a proposal, though, isn't it?

 

As for the snow fences, do they really work? I've never lived where I could observe them but I always envisioned the snow falling on both side of them and that on the road side would bury the road.

[Phi for All]

See # 2 and 3. Those are the points that first hit me. Are we chancing such walls also blocking weather advances that we need? How many people who live in those environs would lose their land? And, an unscientific but necessary consideration - some of us just have a great antipathy against walls. Forgive my being philosophical for just a moment but do you know the song "Don't fence me in?". I am inserting that last simply because it really is something that will come up and get great reaction if any entity ever decides to go ahead with this.

 

Obviously, there would have to be breaks in the fences to allow travel north and south.

 

The psychological factor of building big walls, even if they aren't to "fence me in", is definitely going to be a huge factor if public monies are going to be used. One way to mitigate this is to look for matching funds from the industry that stands to gain the most from this project: the insurers. If they can spend millions to save billions, it's in their best interests to help fund this, or at least contribute towards the research.

 

Losing land would stop this project before it starts. If the wall is designed to let in normal amounts of wind and moisture, why is anyone losing their land?

[Hazel M]

Losing land would stop this project before it starts. If the wall is designed to let in normal amounts of wind and moisture, why is anyone losing their land?

 

They would lose the land that the wall is built on plus land on either side of the wall for much the same reason land is taken on either side of a highway. And they would lose it. We need not mention the power of those condemnation laws, need we?

[Phi for All]

Ah, I see what you mean. Even if they used mostly public lands and kept to the most desolate parts, they would inevitably need to displace someone. Good point.

[Hazel M]

How much desolate land and public land is still in those areas? The parks, yes, but I think most of those are under some kind of control where they cannot be converted. Teddy Roosevelt saw to that. Well, just another thought and we could always change it.

 

I did find one reference in a rather old book saying those two air masses tend to meet about 3,000 feet up. Of course, that would vary. A friend who keeps better informed that I about our weather says the funnels form about 2,000 to 3,000 feet up but the problem arises when they dip downward. I wonder - a non-scientific wonder - could the top of the wall break up a funnel?

 

Of course, I am reminded that there should be no funnel to break up but that requires the storm to be much closer to the ground, doesn't it?.

 

Storms are interesting things to watch and study. The man's idea has me thinking about the hurricanes. That would be harder to control. Yes?