Although atmospheric scientists have never been able to pin down the exact spot where a hurricane will make landfall more than a day or two in advance, it is not inconceivable that someday in the distant future they will possess the wherewithal to divert the massively destructive storms away from major cities.
So the question begs: As our population trends upward, where will these rural populations exist in relation to “major” cities?
The answer is, pretty much nowhere. Even today, diverting hurricane from major cities, such as New Orleans, Houston, and New York, to “rural” areas could imperil other major cites such as Biloxi, Beaumont and Philadelphia. In rare instances, as along the Texas Gulf Coast, existing rural areas are rapidly filling as our population grows and expands. Areas that are rural and sparsely populated today could well become the population centers of tomorrow.
Unfortunately, a storm “diverted” from a major city could still flood other major cities farther inland and, after few days of runoff, the very city it was deflected to protect. More disturbing is the fact that tropical disturbances spawn flooding and tornadoes often more devastating than the slashing winds and pounding waves as it moves onshore.
Statistically, flooding accounts for three-quarters of all Federal “disasters” and causes more deaths and damage than any other hydro-meteorological phenomenon.
Perhaps a more important consideration is how the hurricane would be diverted. Because a hurricane’s steering mechanism depends on a complex set of conditions ranging from high altitude atmospheric jet streams all the way down to the ocean’s surface temperature and currents, any method used would alter the equation in such a way as to insure the storm would follow the intended path. Altering any single factor could also trigger long-term climate changes, thereby inflicting worse conditions than a brief onslaught of wind, rain, and tidal surge.
In the mid 20th century our government experimented with thunderstorm formation, composition, and severity by seeding the atmosphere with silver iodide and other chemicals. Although some success was claimed, it was never clear whether seeding promoted or inhibited thunderstorm cell formation. The last thing we would want to accomplish would be to increase the intensity of a hurricane.
Given these factors, any and all research aimed at diverting hurricanes should proceed with the goal that the storms would have to be diverted while over open water long before predicted landfall. This could be especially effective in the mid Atlantic where a storm can gradually diminish without striking land as it moves northward. Hurricanes that form in the Gulf of Mexico would, of necessity, have to be left untreated.
Perhaps the most important argument against diverting hurricanes is the possibility that the benefits bestowed on the planet by hurricanes are necessary for our survival. For example, any such diversion would radically decrease the average rainfall in the area of impact and therefore affect every living organism in that location.
The truth is, we do not know what the outcome would be. Experience has taught us that science does not always work in ways that benefit mankind, and even the noblest intentions are subject to the law of unintended consequences. It is probably true that Mother Nature knows best and we should leave well enough alone, take Her hits, and hope for the best.
