BILL’Y BOY, you can’t even get a simple PC program to run without thousands of repairs and updates, why don’t you leave the weather to someone who knows what thier doing ,remember the commercial from the late 70’s !

It’s NOT Nice to fool with Mother nature !

Also–don’t worry about the ecosystem. If this technology works (a big if) it would only decrease the high winds but leave most of the rain. It would be done in such a small area for such a short time that local sealife could handle the temporary change

Maybe it could be actually be reversed and create low intensity storms where we need them?

Bill has only good intentions with this project.

Global Warming justifies anything rich people want to do to save us.

Here are my concerns:

Hurricanes are a major transport mechanism for moving heat away from the tropics. Ultimately the heat cycle is trying to balance the cooler poles with the warmer equator. Nature can’t ever finish the job because more heat keeps pumping in from the sun, always warming the equatorial zone more than everywhere else.

If you curb or kill the hurricanes, what happens to that heat? Is the weather system stable with higher global differentials, or do new phenomena appear? Maybe you get more tornados, powerful thunderstorms or lots of mini hurricanes or something?

Others have talked about moving water. Therefore I’ll not go into that in detail, other than to emphasize that rainfall often means life itself, especially in parts of the world that experience the monsoon season.

The other heat-based dependency is the global ocean current cycle, aka the global conveyor belt. My understanding is that this is entirely driven by heat differentials. If you even out the heat distribution of ocean water, meaning deep water is no longer cold(er) and surface water is no longer warm(er), do you risk shutting down the global conveyor belt? Perhaps it just alters the circulation patterns.

This would be a climactic shock of the highest order. Whole continents could have their weather dramatically rearranged. Civilizations rise and fall on such changes. It’s not necessarily bad everywhere, or even most places, but do you want to be one of the losers when the climactic dice are rolled? No one does.

A better solution is for those people who simply must live in these danger zones to build houses and buildings that are very storm proof.

How about paying people to move inland instead and making New Orleans a place people visit, not live, like Disney World? This would be a nice change from the frequent destruction and rebuilding of coastal areas, wasting resources again and again.

As much as some of you disdain Microsoft, Bill Gates and his scientists are not idiots. They too understand the law of unintended consequences.

LEARN TO READ. They realize this is plan ‘C’ – that is, when global warming is so bad, there are numerous category-5 hurricanes, and they aren’t stopping at destroying only the coastal inhabitations. This also suggests that this is more brain-storming than actual concern for money-making, because by the time we’re begging for hurricane mitigation, the patents will have expired.

As for Claire, who abhors the manipulation of nature…I trust that you aren’t eating any farm-grown food, or taking any man-made medicine? Because, you know, God will get all up in your face for not suffering like he wants you to.

The more man manipulates nature…the worse things get.
Playing God has never been a wise course of action…