US President Donald Trump reportedly suggested bombing Hurricane Michael before it reached America

Poor Donald still doesn’t know why
You can’t use a nuke in the sky
To blow up some wind
But this orange-skinned
Fool is still willing to try

John Moynes

Pic: Reuters

40 thoughts on “A Limerick A Day

  1. Batty Brennan

    I’m old enough to remember when we thought DubYa was the dumbest person to ever occupy the White House. This clown makes DubYa look like a brain surgeon.

    Reply
    1. theo kretschmar schuldorff

      Couldn’t his advisers try to convince him that the problem is in delivering the Weather Police’s SuperBomb to the hurricane’s eye – that a Very Stable Genius is required in the bomb to steer it to target?
      Yeee ha! Yeeeeee ha!

      Reply
    2. B9 Com From No

      absolutely
      Dubya was still smart enough to surround himself with actual smart people like Cheney, Condi Rice, Colin Powell and James Baker. (Though he did also hire Rummy and Bolton)

      Reply
  2. dhaughton99

    It’s not a bad question. Don’t they already manipulate the weather with the HAARP array and other technologies?

    Reply
    1. Tony

      Don’t be silly. The reverse vampires control the weather. The HAARP array is how Hilary Clinton’s vaccinated lizard army collapsed the World Trade Cenrte.

      Reply
  3. Ian-O

    Yawn. No wonder this clown got elected when the media fall over themselves to broadcast near every brainfart that comes out of his mouth.

    This isn’t news. This is a 70 plus year old without the slightest idea of science or the natural world.

    Enough now, its not news, its sensationalist crap.

    Reply
  4. Termagant

    This isn’t a new idea. It’s about heating the air above the storm to disrupt the evaporation-condensation cycle that fuels the hurricane in the first place. The main issue is that there’s just too much energy in flux in a full-scale hurricane to be substantially diminished by a nuke with a sufficiently low yield to keep radiation effects within a reasonable limit. There’s nothing wrong with the concept, it’s when you crunch the numbers that it becomes unworkable.

    The average person who’s retweeting this story doesn’t know any of that. They see the headline, “Trump suggests using nuclear bombs to fend off hurricanes”, and they know they’re supposed to ridicule it because it’s a thing that Trump said, and everyone knows everything Trump says is ridiculous. The conditioning is in full effect.

    Reply
    1. B9 Com From No

      they’re supposed to ridicule it because it’s ridiculous

      it’s a thing that Trump said, and it’s ridiculous

      -fixed those bits for you

      everyone knows everything Trump says is ridiculous – you wrote that

      Reply
        1. B9 Com From No

          What do you think this is? Reuters? Elsevier? Go and do some research yourself.

          See also – your tone is extremely rude.

          Cloud seeding and numerous other geo-engineering strategies have been proposed for climate change adaptation efforts. There’s a bagload of money gone into it. Hence some of the opposition to “chem-trails” etc. These are real things that dumb people spend money on.
          All a load of me balls though.

          Reply
          1. Man On Fire

            “your tone is extremely rude.. ”

            LOL

            Pot kettle

            And the rest – utter boulder dash..

          2. Termagant

            I don’t need to do any additional research, I’m already informed. It’s you who very clearly doesn’t understand the principles at play here. This isn’t pseudoscience, it’s science.

          3. B9 Com From No

            It’s science that doesn’t work.

            It’s like boiling multiple kettles to take a bath.

            But you know that …

          4. Termagant

            Here there were zero actual bad words in there!
            My creativity is being heinously curtailed, I feel

          5. Termagant

            @B9

            Why doesn’t the science work? Can you tell me, without scurrying off to google? I don’t think you can, which is entirely my point.

          6. B9 Com From No

            I am sorry, sir

            We do not support that service.

            Can I transfer you to my line manager?

      1. V

        I don’t think it is ridiculous
        In spells of drought
        It has been known to launch gunfire into cloud formations to disrupt them and get them to break

        Reply
          1. V

            Ah yeah I know that
            nonetheless artillery has been used to disrupt weather before

            Shur in rural Alaska they use a cannon to deliberately trigger avalanches and manage snowfall

    2. Batty Brennan

      @Termagant

      Do you know of a single human other than the Stable Genius who thinks this is a good idea?

      Is that person sane, informed & rational?

      Reply
      1. Termagant

        I personally think it would be a great idea if we could come up with a sufficiently energy-dense explosive that didn’t have such undesirable side effects. The principle is sound.

        Reply
          1. Termagant

            It does have a basis in science, if you could release sufficient energy to produce enough heat it would work. It would work with contemporary weapons on less powerful storm systems. And tell me, honestly, when this story broke and you had your initial “Gosh silly Drumpf does it again” reaction did you know that a hurricane can release heat energy at a rate of 5 to 20×10^13 watts? Do you know offhand how many joules are released by a nuclear bomb per megaton?

            Ultimately, were you any less ignorant of the specifics of neutralising a hurricane with nuclear bombs than people are lambasting Trump for being?

          2. Termagant

            And understand, I’m not arguing in favour of nuking hurricanes. I’m saying that the general public aren’t reacting the way they’re reacting because they know the science indicates it’s technically unworkable, they don’t know squat, they’re reacting that way because it’s Trump.

          3. deluded

            Nuking stuff is not an unusual proposition, I’m thinking of Operation Ploughshare etc.
            The failures and the fallout have long been studied.
            I will concede though you have a point.
            In theory a large enough explosive force could counteract a hurricane, but would it be survivable?

          4. Termagant

            The general reaction has been pitched as “What a buffoon Trump is, saying ridiculous things as usual”

            But it’s not a ridiculous thing, the principle is sound, it’s not until you get into the technical specifics of the energy release in a hurricane vs the thermal energy release of a nuclear detonation that it becomes clear it’s unworkable.

            People aren’t lambasting Trump for ignorance because the average punter in the street is familiar with the specifics of wattage in the eyewall of a hurricane or the joules/megaton ratio of a standard edition nuclear device. They’re doing so because they’ve been instructed to.

            Trump asked his aides why they can’t stop a hurricane with a nuke. You asked google. There’s no difference, but nobody’s mocking you.

          5. Termagant

            As regards nuking hurricanes: fortunately they form at sea. If you could produce the heat without the radiation there’d be minimal risk to human life in the moment, though I’m sure there would be knock on atmospheric effects of continual airborne nuking.

          6. deluded

            I didn’t say anything about Trump, I’ve read about stuff like Starfish Prime which is why I read the comments here, although I do think it’s a clownish distraction to Andrew Wheeler, for example.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *