An Experimental Methodology for Storm Mitigation

Venkata Chaganti, Murali Krishna Cheruvu

Akshara Yantra LLC, Irving, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/acs.2022.124037                

Abstract

There are many theoretical explanations for the mitigation of tornados, storms, and hurricanes and one or two known simulation models that address the reduction of the intensities of these forces. We introduce an innovative methodology that releases environmentally friendly aerosol particles responsible for cloud condensation and weakens the intensities of these forces. For the past nine years, we did several experiments and analyzed the results. Experimental results give evidence to this methodology is practical, environment-friendly, cost-effective, and consistent. In this paper, we described our experiments along with results in three different scenarios such as tornado (March 2021, Georgia USA), storm Claudette (June 2021, Georgia USA), and hurricane Elsa (July 2021, Florida USA). Our experimental outcome and subsequent relevant meteorology data support the reason for mitigating the intensity of these destructive forces in and around the experiment locations.

Keywords

Storm Mitigation, Hurricane Mitigation, Tornado Mitigation, Claudette 2021, Elsa 2021, Aerosol

1. Introduction

Storms and Hurricanes can cause tornadoes, heavy rains, wind, thunder, hail, etc., causing a disturbance in the environment and damaging property, harming lives, and producing flooding. The international hurricane research center (IHRC) reported new research to mitigate hurricane-induced effects on residential buildings and other structures [1]. For hurricane mitigation planning, Philip et al. [2] have considered automated decision support systems using computer technology. Shirley et al. [3] gave evidence that social vulnerability influenced outcomes of natural disasters such as hurricanes. $16 billion in damages were caused by hurricane Wilma in October 2005 in South Florida according to the author Stephen [4]. Nicole et al. [5] reported that electricity maintenance and restoration after a hurricane disaster helps preserve the well-being and health of people on life-sustaining medical equipment. A study [6] indicated that in case of extreme events, information on emergency management and crisis support focus should be in the IT research areas.

David Alexander [7] opines that if real-time integration of satellites, microcomputers, communication satellites, etc., is done then it will be useful for natural disaster management. To remotely monitor the man-made structures under the effects of hurricane winds, distributed software was developed [8]. Defu Liu et al. [9] studied on statistical prediction model of typhoon-induced wave height and wind speed and regarded that high importance should be given to the risk assessment of some design codes for coastal defense infrastructures. Elizabeth et al. [10] suggested that to mitigate hurricane damage, amphibious construction could reduce flood damage without being vulnerable to wind. It was reported [11] that depending on the conditions of their atmospheric and oceanic surroundings hurricanes can be regulated. Kerry Emanuel’s [12] hypotheses predict that the maintenance and intensification of tropical cyclones depend on the self-induced heat transfer from the ocean.

Rachel Fritts [13] observed that industrial air pollution would increase the intensities of storms and hurricanes as more pollution will create more heat and condense the water. Sarah Gibbens [14] noted that Climate Change and Global Warming make the intensities of the storms and hurricanes much more rapid as observed in eight of the storms in 2020 had increased wind speeds of 35 mph in less than 24-hour periods. As Adam [15] noted, if we take the last five years (2016-2020) into consideration, climate disasters in the United States of America exceed $600 billion.

Project STORMFURY [16] used an artificial modification of stimulation outside the hurricane/storm eyewall through silver iodide seeding on eight different days in four hurricanes and observed that the winds decreased between 10% - 30% on four of these days. It was argued that the artificially stimulated convection would compete with the convection in the original eye wall. This would cause a change in the radius of the eye wall leading to a decrease in the wind speed. The authors further argued that even a 10% decrease in the wind speed would decrease the damage to a greater extent. As a booster to this project’s details, Daniel et al. [17] reported that the simulated numerical models showed aerosols responsible for cloud condensation can weaken the storms. The report said that the land and ocean aerosols (Black Carbon, Organic Carbon, Dust, Sea Salt, and Sulphates) were considered in the simulations and this study was based on STORMFURY work.

Huan et al. [18] observed the simulation effects of sea-salt aerosols on the structure and precipitation of a developed tropical cyclone and noted that increasing sea-salt aerosol emissions leads 1) to a more obvious warm core structure and more latent heat release, 2) shifts peak precipitation towards the tropical cyclone center, and 3) may increase convective precipitation.

It was found that the cloud effective radius could be decreased by anthropogenic aerosols that subsequently suppress the warm cloud precipitation with the corresponding release of latent heat. These aerosols effectively act as Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) so that more cloud water can reach the freezing layer [19] [20] [21] [22]. Jiang et al. [23] found that anthropogenic aerosols discharged from land can promote convective precipitation rate at the periphery of a Tropical Cyclone (TC).

The above experimental and simulated works fall in line with our already existing research work in finding methods to artificially modify the convection of the outer wall of the Hurricane. Griffith et al. [24] introduced a ground-based, manually operated Silver Iodide generator (Figure 1) for the operation of winter cloud seeding to obtain snow. They used a seeding solution that contained 3% solution of silver iodide complexed with sodium iodide and paradichlorobenzene dissolved in acetone that is burned in a propane flame.

Experimental implementation to mitigating tornadoes, storms, and hurricanes is a scientific challenge and if done, gives a lot of benefits such as decrease in human fatality, and reduced property damage worth billions of dollars.

Research work [23] supports anthropogenic aerosols discharged from land can promote convective precipitation rate at the periphery of Tropical Cyclone. In this paper, we propose the method to weaken the storm/hurricane/tornado

Figure 1. Ground based manually operated Silver Iodide Generator. Courtesy: Griffith et al. [24] (Silver Iodide Generator).

intensity by using ground-based manually operated Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN) Generator that uses environmentally friendly food materials rather than using Silver Iodide crystals.

2. Method and Materials

2.1. Generating Ground-Based CCN

We conducted several experiments that release environmentally friendly aerosols into the atmosphere. Over the past few years, we conducted these experiments to produce manually ground-based CCN. We arranged 30 inches round and 9 inches depth copper firepit (Figure 2) and burned selective wood pieces from certain trees along with selective food materials to produce environmentally friendly aerosols (cloud condensation nuclei) that can reduce the storm intensity. The aerosols are environmentally friendly as these aerosols did not increase the Air Quality Index (AQI) in the area and in fact decreased the AQI within a few hours of the experiment. As the temperature is not sufficient to melt and vaporize the copper in the fire pit negligible amount of copper particles are included in the smoke plume aerosol or particulate matter, PM_2.5 or PM₁₀. The natural question is how do we know these aerosols made their way into the clouds to be seeded? We have given sufficient evidence in the results section. These CCN will likely grow into cloud drops at the atmosphere’s LCL (lifting condensation level).

Parameters such as wind, rain, place, and surroundings were taken into the consideration. We did the experiments in an open space with a high roof to prevent rainwater falling in the firepit (brazier). Also, to prevent winds (if present), we use temporary wooden protective walls.

2.2. Materials

· Ghee (clarified butter): Brooke et al. [25] calculated the relative hygroscopicity of atmospheric aerosol organics and concluded that the hygroscopicity of

Figure 2. Firepit releasing environmentally friendly aerosols (Firepit).

Table 1. Aerosols produced by burning food materials—courtesy [27]. (a, b, … k) indicate different references taken by the author [27] (Aerosols by burning food materials).

carbonyls < alcohols < monoacids < diacids. They also reported that individually each of the compounds in pure form take up more water than collectively in a compound. In our experiment we used Ghee (clarified butter) as fuel to enhance the heat in the firepit while the wood is burning to produce less pollution and generate hygroscopic atmospheric organic aerosols. Ghee [26] contains 98.9% lipids with major lipid fraction containing fatty acids. When Ghee is burned it splits into individual compounds and as a result takes up more water as observed by Brooke et al.

· Wheat, Rice, Walnut, Corn, Almond, and Barley: Table 1 gives the weight (grams) of PM2.5 and PM10 aerosols produced due to burning one kilogram each of wheat, walnut, corn, almond, and barley. In the table, the letters (a, b, … k) indicate different references taken by the author. These materials are used for generating environmentally friendly CCN aerosols that may be in the form of molecules/ions/nano particles.

· Pinewood: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) declared that burning wood is Carbon neutral [28]. Jim Haywood [29] reports from simple conceptual framework of monodisperse distribution of cloud droplets in clouds that anthropogenic aerosols which are active as CCN can increase the optical depth of clouds and increase reflectivity of clouds. Also, if the number of cloud droplets increase along with the decrease in the size of the droplet, there is chance for the clouds not to reach the critical size for precipitation.

3. Process

The selected materials were grains, nuts, ghee (clarified butter), and some aromatic materials such as sandalwood. These materials are burned in specified quantities and at specified intervals for producing efficient results. The materials were manually placed with the help of long spoons (process can be automated for scaling) into the firepit to give time for the materials to properly combust as shown in Table 2.

3.1. Quantity of Each Material Used in the Process

Table 2. Materials and quantities used (materials and quantities used).

3.2. PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ from Burnt Materials

Table 3. PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ produced from burning materials [27] (PM_2.5 and PM₁₀).

3.3. Effects of Produced PM_2.5 and PM₁₀

According to National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)’s Earth Observatory [30], the smoke can rise (forest burning) to a height of 2 to 3 km and spread to 300 km in the wind direction while descending 1 km. Smoke ascends upwards due to low density and increases its volume while it cools as it climbs. While climbing the smoke particles become cloud condensing nuclei if those are hygroscopic and these CCN may form clouds at that height.

Smoke dispersion is affected by [31] Surface winds, Relative Humidity, Temperature, Atmospheric Stability, Mixing Height, Transport Winds, Long-Range Transport, Down Drainage, Plume Rise, and Dispersion Index.

Considering NASA’s observations [30], we assume the smoke produced in our experiments could spread to 30 km to 40 km with maximum density to be present within 1 km radius and 100 m depth. Air that was filled with the experimental burning process to contain these PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ within a depth of 100 m (at a height of 1 km) and radius of 1 km, the volume of air would be around.

$V=\text{3}.\text{14}\times {\left(\text{1}000\right)}^{\text{2}}\times \left(\text{1}00\right){\text{m}}^{\text{3}}$ (1)

$\text{V}=\text{3}.\text{14}\times \text{1}{0}^{\text{8}}{\text{m}}^{\text{3}}$ (2)

Due to the burning the concentration of PM_2.5 in the above said volume (see Equation (2)) would increase by (from Table 3 and Equation (2)).

C (PM_2.5) = 65.45 × 10⁶ (micrograms)/V (cubic meter) (3)

C (PM_2.5) = 0.21 micrograms per cubic meter (4)

Similarly, the concentration of PM₁₀ would be:

C (PM₁₀) = 47.5 × 10⁶ (micrograms)/V (cubic meter) (5)

C (PM₁₀) = 0.15 micrograms per cubic meter (6)

From the above calculations we can see that the burnt materials do not add to pollution but rather those are useful as CCN.

3.4. Heat Released in the Process

As wood and food burning always release heat and all materials burned/combusted in our experiment was wood and food related, the combustion/burning process release heat as referenced in Table 4.

3.5. Utilization of Heat Released in the Combustion/Burning Process

The released heat will be used to lower the density of burnt material to increase the buoyancy of generated aerosols upon their injection into the troposphere.

4. Experiments

We would like to present our experiments conducted on three different occasions

Table 4. Heat released during the combustion/burning process (Heat released during the combustion process).

in 2021. The first was conducted on 17^th March 2021 at McDonough, Georgia USA when severe storm warning was issued by national weather channel that tornados and severe weather would affect areas near McDonough, Georgia USA early morning of 18^th March 2021. Second experiment was conducted on 19^th and 20^th June 2021 at McDonough, Georgia USA before Storm Claudette passed through Georgia. Third experiment was conducted on 5^th and 6^th July 2021 at Sarasota Springs, Florida USA to mitigate the intensity of the hurricane/storm Elsa.

4.1. Experiment 1

Saint Patrick’s Day tornado outbreak of 2021 [40], that lasted about three days from March 16^th to 18^th 2021. On 16^th and 17^th March National Weather Channel gave Tornado and severe Storm warnings that could damage parts of Georgia (GA) on 18^th March 2021. The damage predicted was so severe that many schools were given virtual classes on 18^th March 2021 so that students would not attend the in-person classes. On learning this message on 17^th March from news channels, we did the experiment at McDonough, GA on 17^th March 2021 between 6:00 PM and 7:30 PM (EDT USA) that released environmentally friendly aerosols into the atmosphere to analyze the effects of these aerosols on the Tornado.

4.2. Experiment 2

On learning that Tropical Storm Claudette (18^th June 2021) caused severe damage in the state of Alabama and would pass through Georgia as Tropical Depression, we repeated the experiment when storm Claudette was about to pass Georgia on 20^th June 2021. Our experiment at McDonough, GA released environmentally friendly aerosols on the evening of 19^th June between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM (EDT USA), and on the morning of 20^th June 2021 between 10:00 AM and 12:00 noon (EDT USA) at McDonough, GA. Storm Claudette passed through Georgia on 20^th June 2021.

4.3. Experiment 3

On learning about Tropical Storm Elsa that would turn into a Hurricane on the west of Florida, and could damage Tampa Bay region and west Florida, we conducted our experiment in the premises of hotel Super 8 by Wyndham near Sarasota Springs, FL (Figure 3) and released environmentally friendly aerosols on the evening of 5^th July between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM (EDT USA), and on the morning of 6^th July 2021 between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM (EDT USA). Experimental results give evidence to this methodology to be practical, environment friendly, cost-effective (significantly less expensive when compared to cloud seeding with silver iodide), and consistent.

5. Results

Mainly the following scientific parameters and their values published by EOSDIS

Figure 3. Experiment at Sarasota Springs, FL (Firepit at experiment location).

WORLD VIEW [41] was used for analyzing our results.

· Aerosol Index [41]: The Aerosol Index layer (PyroCumuloNimbus) indicates Ultraviolet (UV) absorbing particles (aerosols) in the air such as desert dust and soot particles in the atmosphere. It is related to both the thickness of the Aerosol layer located in the atmosphere and to the height of the layer. The measurement is unit less range from 0 to 50 and the Aerosol Index measures unit less range from 0 to 5. Values greater than 5 indicates dense smoke and if the value is greater than 10, indicates the smoke has reached upper troposphere and into stratosphere. This parameter is used to check the increase in aerosols in the atmosphere.

· Effective Radius [41]: It is a measure of cloud particle size in microns during daytime for water phase and ice phase. Generally, the smaller the particle size, brighter and more effective are the clouds. The smaller cloud particles tend to reflect and scatter more sunlight back into space. This parameter is used to check if the cloud effective radius has decreased or not. If decreased, then we can confirm that more aerosols have been introduced and the clouds are more effective. Moreover, if newly water phase CCN are formed, we can consider there is a release of heat.

· Cloud Top Temperature [41]: It indicates the atmospheric temperature at the top of the cloud measured in Kelvin. It can be used to infer tropical convection and precipitation. This parameter is an indication of heat released if the temperature is increased.

· Cloud Phase Infrared [41]: It indicates the phase of the cloud particles inferred from the infrared wavelengths (8.5 to 11 microns). The three cloud particle phase categories received are ice, liquid, and uncertain.

5.1. Experiment 1: Results and Discussion (Experiment on 17^th March 2021)

From Table 5, the aerosol index indicates that on 16^th March 2021 there are few aerosols when compared to 17^th March 2021. This indicates that excess aerosols have been produced on the 17^th of March indicating either the aerosols were released from our experiment or from some other sources. 16^th, 17^th, and 18^th of March happened to be Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, all aerosols producing sources (like factories, vehicles etc.) should be regular. We see that on 16^th Aerosol Index is less than 0.5 and expect about the same on the next days. But an increase in the aerosol quantity indicates that some additional sources of aerosols have been injected into the atmosphere that have risen to a good height of 1.5 km or so. This confirms the release of aerosols from our experiment on 17^th March 2021.

We see from Table 6 the Ice Phase Cloud Effective Radius is the collection of the data during daytime. We did the experiment before Sunset and the data for night is not available. As we can see the Cloud Effective Radius has decreased on 18^th March. This indicates the bigger size IN (Ice Nuclei) have become small due to excess aerosols arriving at the clouds. Also, if we include the Table 7 data, we see that the Cloud Top Temperature has increased on 17^th of March indicating release of heat. The heat release could be due to the water vapor condensation. Therefore, it can be inferred that the extra aerosols that were released by our experiment caused artificially invigorated convection [16] [17], decrease in wind speeds, and subsequent mitigation of the Tornado.

According to National Weather Service [42] as was reported on 19^th March

Table 5. Aerosol Index Layer above McDonough, GA [41] (Aerosol Index Layer above McDonough, GA).

Table 6. Cloud Effective Radius [41] (Cloud Effective Radius).

Table 7. Cloud Top Temperature [41] (Cloud Top Temperature).

2021, “the tornado has either dissipated or was in the process of doing so”. This may be considered as the result of our tornado mitigation experiment since the tornado predictions given few hours before were downgraded in the experiment location—McDonough, GA.

5.2. Experiment 2: Results and Discussion (Experiment on 19^th June 2021 Evening and 20^th June 2021 Morning)

From Table 8 we can check that the Aerosol Index on 20^th June 2021 is almost double that on 18^th June 2021. 19^th and 20^th June 2021 happened to be a weekend (Saturday and Sunday), we expect a smaller number of aerosols due to absence of regular aerosol sources (factories, vehicles etc.) on these days. On the contrary, there is an increased activity of aerosols, and we attribute it to our experiments conducted on 19^th evening and 20^th morning of June 2021.

From Table 9, we can see that the Cloud Effective Radius during daytime on 20^th of June 2021is considerably less than the Cloud Effective Radius during daytime of 18^th and 19^th June 2021. From Table 10 we can see the temperature during the daytime has increased on 20^th of June 2021 when compared to 19^th of June 2021 indicating heat release. This could be due to the water vapor condensing on the new aerosols that arrived due to our experiment.

Therefore, from the above discussion based on the data in Tables 8-10, we can safely say that the extra aerosols that were released by our experiments caused artificially invigorated convection [16] [17], decrease in wind speeds, and

Table 8. Aerosol Index Lyaer above McDonough, GA [41] (Aerosol Index Layer).

Table 9. Cloud Effective Radius [Aqua/Modis] [41] (Cloud Effective Radius).

Table 10. Cloud Top Temperature [41] (Cloud Top Temperature).

subsequent mitigation of the storm Claudette.

From Table 11 and Figure 4, we can see the complete track of Tropical Storm (TS) Claudette as it passed Alabama, Georgia, South, and North Carolina, and into the Atlantic Ocean where it dissipated. TS Claudette entered Georgia around 7:00 AM EST (1100 UTC) on 20^th June 2021 and left Georgia around 5:00 PM EST (2100 UTC) on 20^th June 2021. During this time the speed of the storm had increased to 17 mph and the maximum sustainable wind speed had fallen to 30 mph. After that the speed continued to increase but the maximum sustainable wind speed slowly picked up. No noticeable damages were reported in Georgia, South, and North Carolinas. It was dissipated earlier than it was predicted and by deviating from its original path in the Atlantic Ocean.

From Table 11, we can check the coordinates and time at which the speed of the winds had dropped to 30 mph (least speed during the existence of storm Claudette). Between 0300 UTC on 20^th June (11:00 PM EDT USA on 19^th June) and 0000 UTC on 21^st June (8:00 PM EDT USA on 20^th June), the speed of the winds had dropped to 30 mph when the storm was within a radius of 200 miles from McDonough, GA where the experiment was conducted.

Figure 4. Path of Tropical Depression Claudette 2021 (Image Courtesy: NWS National Hurricane Center).

Table 11. Claudette System Track—Courtesy National Hurricane Center [43] (Claudette 2021).

5.3. Experiment 3: Results and Discussion (Experiment on 5^th July 2021 Evening and 6^th July 2021 Morning)

Table 12 clearly indicates that the number of aerosols has increased on 6^th and 7^th, of July 2021. This is plausible due to re-leasing aerosols on the evening of 5^th July 2021 and Morning of 6^th July 2021. In any case the number of aerosols has in-creased from 5^th to 7^th, and it is an indication that there is a chance for CCN formation. Cloud Effective Radius is a measure of cloud particle size in microns.

Cloud Phase Infrared

Cloud Phase infrared layer indicates the phase of cloud particles inferred from the infrared wavelengths 8.5 microns to 11 microns. Changes in the cloud phase affect the climate feedback mechanism.

Table 13 gives the Cloud Effective Radius obtained during the daytime. The Cloud Effective Radius transformation between daytime of 6^th July 2021 and daytime of 7^th July 2021 indicated that the size of the Ice Nuclei (IN) has decreased. This indicates there were additional aerosols that decreased the Cloud Effective Radius. We can see from the Table 14 to get the status of these IN that matches with the Table 13. Storm Elsa turned into Hurricane at about 8:00 PM (0000 UT) on 6^th of July 201 and fallen back to Storm status between midnight of 6^th July 2021 and 1:00 AM of 7^th July 2021.

Therefore, a lot of heat must have been released from conversion of water vapor to IN (Ice Nuclei), and it was plausible that the extra aerosols that were released by our experiment caused artificially invigorated convection [16] [17], decrease in wind speeds, and subsequent mitigation of the Hurricane Elsa.

Table 12. Aerosol Index Value [41] (Aerosol Index Value).

Table 13. Cloud Effective Radius (Aqua/MODIS) [41] (Cloud Effective Radius).

Table 14. Cloud Phase Infrared [41] (Cloud Phase Infrared).

From Table 15 and Figure 5, we can see the complete track of Tropical Storm (TS) Elsa as it passed Florida, Georgia, South, and North Carolina, and into the Atlantic Ocean where it dissipated. TS Elsa entered Key West, FL around 8:00 AM EST (1200 UTC or 8AM EDT USA) on 6^th July 2021 and landfall in FL around 10:00 AM EST (1400 UTC or 10AM EDT USA) on 7^th July 2021.

From Table 15, we can see that TS Elsa turned to Category-1 Hurricane at about 8:00 PM EDT (6^th July 2021) or (0000 UTC) on 7^th July 2021and is located about west of Fort Myers, FL and about 62 miles South-west of Sarasota Springs, FL and maintained to a Hurricane status for about 3 hours till 11:00 PM of 6^th July 2021 (0300 UTC 7^th July) when it came closest (about 42 miles) to Sarasota Springs, FL. While crossing this point hurricane Elsa dropped its status to TS Elsa with wind speeds falling to 70 mph.

On the 4^th, 5^th, and 6^th July weather reports from different agencies predicted that TS Elsa would turn into a Hurricane and bring storm surge of 5 ft or more and heavy rains to Tampa Bay and other areas in Florida. On 6^th July 2021 TS Elsa crossed Key West and caused storm surge and heavy winds. TS Elsa brought storm surge and heavy rains to Naples, FL, and Fort Myers. Even though the

Figure 5. Tropical Storm Elsa 2021. Image Courtesy: NWS National Hurricane Center (Elsa 2021).

Table 15. Elsa System Track—Courtesy National Hurricane Center [44] (Elsa Track).

storm Elsa passed closest to Sarasota Springs, Clearwater, and Tampa Bay, it did not cause storm surge and did not pour heavy rains in these areas.

At 2:00 AM EDT USA (0600 UTC) on 7^th July, TS Elsa was placed at about 69 miles from Sarasota Springs, FL as a Storm with maximum sustained wind speeds of 70 mph. From this point TS Elsa’s wind speed decreased gradually to 65 mph and after landfall at around 10:00 AM. From then onwards the speed of TS Elsa increased gradually from 14 mph to 31 mph and wind speeds decreased gradually from 65 mph to 45 mph.

From Table 15, we can see that when the eye of the hurricane was between (27.3N, 83.2W) and (27.9N, 83.5W) it was close to the location of the experiment—Sarasota Springs, FL (27.3N, 82.5W). During this time the hurricane dropped its status to a Tropical Storm (TS) and we can observe that the pressure increased from 996 mb to 1004 mb. Since the location Sarasota Springs, FL is in the wall (>30 miles from the eye) of the hurricane, we can conclusively say that our experiment caused artificially invigorated convection [16] [17], a decrease in wind speeds, an increase in pressure and subsequent mitigation of the Hurricane Elsa.

Table 16 gives the average rainfall over a period of 30 hours starting at 6:00 AM on 6^th July 2021 and ending at 12:00 PM on 7^th July 20. We can clearly see that the average rainfall in Sarasota Springs, Tampa, and Clearwater did not cross 2.16 inches. Whereas if it were to be a hurricane, it should have been at least 10 inches of rainfall as predicted. We can see the rainfall in Fort Myers was about 4.62 inches which is more than double that in Sarasota Springs. This clearly indicates that the intensity of Storm Elsa has been mitigated to a good extent due to our experiment.

Table 16. A 30-hour Average Rainfall starting 6AM on 6^th July 2021 ending 12 PM 7^th July 20. Courtesy: NOAA’s NWS [45] (Elsa Rainfall).

6. Conclusion

Advanced tools and methods may help in tracking the storm intensities and rate of conversions to hurricanes. Fatality rates have significantly come down with continuous communication and relocating the people. However, the reactive nature of addressing storms and hurricanes is not effective in controlling the risks and potential property damages. Our methodology and experiments bring hope of establishing a new yet effective way to reduce the intensities of tornadoes, storms, and hurricanes if done in advance in the path of the storm or hurricane path locations. Our methodology releases (ground-based) environmentally friendly aerosol particles that are responsible for cloud condensation and weaken the intensities of these forces. Results from our recent experiments focused on tornado (17^th March 2021), storm Claudette (19^th and 20^th June 2021), and hurricane Elsa (5^th and 6^th July 2021) indicate that the methodology of releasing ground-based aerosols by burning prescribed materials in a prescribed method to be effective in mitigating intensities (including rainfall where applicable) of tornadoes, storms, and hurricanes.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank US National Hurricane Center (NHC) for providing detailed datasets with timelines and clear storm paths. We would also like to thank Venkata Sastry Munnagala for his assistance while conducting the experiment. Our special thanks go to Super 8 Wyndham at Sarasota Springs, FL, Hotel Management Team—Uday Rawal and Priya Rawal for facilitating to conduct of the experiment on the hotel premises.

Appendix

The following figures are collected from EOSDIS WORLD VIEW [41].

Figure A1. Cloud Effective Radius: March 16^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A2. Cloud Effective Radius: March 17^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A3. Cloud Effective Radius: March 18^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A4. Cloud Top Temperature: March 16^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A5. Cloud Top Temperature: March 17^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A6. Cloud Top Temperature: March 18^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A7. UV Aerosol Index: June 18^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A8. UV Aerosol Index: June 19^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A9. UV Aerosol Index: June 20^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A10. Cloud Effective Radius: June 18^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A11. Cloud Effective Radius: June 19^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A12. Cloud Effective Radius: June 20^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A13. Cloud Top Temperature: June 18^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A14 Cloud Top Temperature: June 19^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A15. Cloud Top Temperature: June 20^th, 2021, McDonough, GA, USA.

Figure A16. Aerosol Index: July 5^th, 2021, Sarasota Springs, FL, USA.

Figure A17. Aerosol Index: July 6^th, 2021, Sarasota Springs, FL, USA.

Figure A18. Aerosol Index: July 7^th, 2021, Sarasota Springs, FL, USA.

Figure A19. Cloud Effective Radius: July 5^th, 2021, Sarasota Springs, FL, USA.

Figure A20. Cloud Effective Radius: July 6^th, 2021, Sarasota Springs, FL, USA.

Figure A21. Cloud Effective Radius: July 7^th, 2021, Sarasota Springs, FL, USA.

Figure A22. Cloud Phase Infrared: July 5^th, 2021, Sarasota Springs, FL, USA.

Figure A23. Cloud Phase Infrared: July 6^th, 2021, Sarasota Springs, FL, USA.

Figure A24. Cloud Phase Infrared: July 7^th, 2021, Sarasota Springs, FL, USA.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1]	Leatherman, S.P., Chowdhury, A.G. and Robertson, C.J. (2007) Wall of Wind Full-Scale Destructive Testing of Coastal Houses and Hurricane Damage Mitigation. Journal of Coastal Research, 23, 1211-1217. https://doi.org/10.2112/07-0829.1
[2]	Berke, P. and Stubbs, N. (1989) Automated Decision Support Systems for Hurricane Mitigation Planning. Simulation, 53, 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/003754978905300304
[3]	Laska, S. and Morrow, B.H. (2006/2007) Social Vulnerabilities and Hurricane Katrina: An Unnatural Disaster in New Orleans. Marine Technology Society Journal, 40, 16-26. https://doi.org/10.4031/002533206787353123
[4]	Leatherman, S.P. (2011) Hurricane Wind Damage Mitigation: Research and Outlook. Natural Hazards Review, 12, 202-206. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000048
[5]	Hutton, N.S. and Allen, M.J. (2020) Challenges in Upgrading Emergency Power in Florida Nursing Homes following Hurricane Irma. American Meteorological Society, 12, 805-814. https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-19-0064.1
[6]	Jefferson, T.L. (2006) Evaluating the Role of Information Technology in Crisis and Emergency Management. VINE, 36, 261-264. https://doi.org/10.1108/03055720610703542
[7]	Alexander, D. (1991) Information Technology in Real-Time for Monitoring and Managing Natural Disasters. Progress in Physical Geography, 15, 238-260. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913339101500302
[8]	Otero, C.E. (2009) Real-Time Monitoring of Hurricane Winds Using Wireless and Sensor Technology. Journal of Computers, 4, 1275-1285. https://doi.org/10.4304/jcp.4.12.1275-1285
[9]	Liu, D.F. and Wang, F.Q. (2019) Typhoon/Hurricane/Tropical Cyclone Disasters: Prediction, Prevention, and Mitigation. Journal of Geoscience and Environment Protection, 7, 26-36. https://doi.org/10.4236/gep.2019.75003
[10]	English, E.C., Friedland, C.J. and Orooji, F. (2017) Combined Flood and Wind Mitigation for Hurricane Damage Prevention: The Case for Amphibious Construction. Journal of Structural Engineering, 143, Article ID: 06017001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ST.1943-541X.0001750
[11]	Merrill, R.T. (1988) Environmental Influences on Hurricane Intensification. Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, 45, 1678-1687. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1988)045<1678:EIOHI>2.0.CO;2
[12]	Emanuel, K.A. (1986) An Air-Sea Interaction Theory for Tropical Cyclones. Part-1 Steady-State Maintenance. American Meteorological Society, 43, 585-604. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1986)043<0585:AASITF>2.0.CO;2
[13]	Fritts, R. (2020) To Make Better Hurricane Models, Consider Air Pollution. EOS, December 23. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020EO153044
[14]	Gibbens, S. (2020) Did Climate Change Drive 2020’s Epic Hurricane Season? It’s Complicated. Environment, November 10.
[15]	Smith, A.B. (2021) 2020 U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters in Historical Context. Climate.gov, January 8.
[16]	Willoughby, H.E., Jorgensen, D.P., Black, R.A. and Rosenthal, S.L. (1985) Project Stormfury A Scientific Chronicle 1962-1983. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 66, 505-514. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1985)066<0505:PSASC>2.0.CO;2
[17]	Rosenfield, D., Clavner, M. and Nirel, R. (2011) Pollution and Dust Aerosols Modulating Tropical Cyclones Intensities. Atmospheric Research, 102, 66-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2011.06.006
[18]	Luo, H., Jiang, B.L., Li, F.Z. and Lin, W.S. (2019) Simulation of the Effects of Sea-Salt Aerosols on the Structure and Precipitation of a Developed Tropical Cyclone. Atmospheric Research, 217, 120-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2018.10.018
[19]	Khain, A., Lynn, B. and Dudhia, J. (2010) Aerosol Effects on Intensity of Landfalling Hurricanes as Seen from Simulations with the WRF Model with Spectral Bin Microphysics. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 67, 365-384. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JAS3210.1
[20]	Rosenfeld, D. and Woodley, W.L. (2000) Convective Clouds with Sustained Highly Supercooled Liquid Water Down to 37 ℃. Nature, 405, 440-442. https://doi.org/10.1038/35013030
[21]	Rosenfeld, D., Lohmann, U., Raga, G.B., O’Dowd, C.D., Kulmala, M., Fuzzi, S., Reissell, A. and Andreae, M.O. (2008) Flood or Drought: How do Aerosols Affect Precipitation? Science, 321, 1309-1313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1160606
[22]	Andreae, M.O., Rosenfeld, D., Artaxo, P., Costa, A.A., Frank, G.P., Longo, K.M. and Silva-Dias, M.A.F. (2004) Smoking Rain Clouds over the Amazon. Science, 303, 1337-1342. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1092779
[23]	Jiang, B., Huang, B., Lin, W. and Xu, S. (2016) Investigation of the Effects of Anthropogenic Pollution on Typhoon Precipitation and Microphysical Processes Using WRF-Chem. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 73, 1593-1610. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAS-D-15-0202.1
[24]	Griffith, D.A., Solak, M.E. and Yorty, D.P. (2009) 30+ Winter Seasons of Operational Cloud Seeding in Utah. Journal of Weather Modification, 41, 23-37.
[25]	Hemming, B.L. and Seinfeld, J.H. (2001) On the Hygroscopic Behavior of Atmospheric Organic Aerosols. Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research, 40, 4162-4171. https://doi.org/10.1021/ie000790l
[26]	Pena-Sernaluis, C. and Restrepo-Betancur, F. (2020) Chemical, Physicochemical, Microbiological, and Sensory Characterization of Cow and Buffalo Ghee. Food Science and Technology, 40, 444-450.
[27]	Sharratt, B. and Auvermann, B. (2014) Dust Pollution from Agriculture. In: Alexander, P., Ed., Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems, Elsevier, New York, 487-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-52512-3.00089-9
[28]	Daley, J. (2018, April 24) The EPA Declared That Burning Wood Is Carbon Neutral. It’s Actually a Lot More Complicated. Smithsonian Magazine. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/epa-declares-burning-wood-carbon-neutral-180968880
[29]	Haywood, J. (2016) Climate Change: Observed Impacts on Planet Earth. Second Edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam.
[30]	How the Smoke Rises. NASA Earth Observatory. https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/144658/how-the-smoke-rises
[31]	Smoke Dispersion. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1046311.pdf
[32]	Howard, E.T. (1973) Heat of Combustion of Various Southern Pine Materials. Wood Science, 5, 194-197. https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/ja/ja_howard009.pdf
[33]	Wheat Nutrient Information. US Department of Agriculture. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/?query=790085
[34]	Almond Nutrient Information. US Department of Agriculture. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/?query=323294
[35]	Rice Nutrient Information. US Department of Agriculture. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/?query=1104812
[36]	Corn Nutrient Information. US Department of Agriculture. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/?query=790276
[37]	Barley Nutrient Information. US Department of Agriculture. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/?query=170284
[38]	Walnut Nutrient Information. US Department of Agriculture. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/?query=170187
[39]	Ghee (Clarified Butter) Nutrient Information. US Department of Agriculture. https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/?query=171314
[40]	Saint Patrick’s Day Tornado Outbreak of 2021. March 16th to 18th, 2021. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tornado_outbreak_of_March_16%E2%80%9318,_2021
[41]	World View. NASA. https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?lg=false&t=2021-08-11-T15%3A37%3A22Z
[42]	St Patrick’s Day Tornado/Severe Outbreak. National Weather Service. https://www.weather.gov/mob/2021_March17_Tornadoes
[43]	Remnants of Claudette System Track (2021). https://towndock.net/weather/tropical-system-3
[44]	Post-Tropical Cyclone Elsa System Track (2021). https://towndock.net/weather/tropical-system-5
[45]	Tropical Cyclone Elsa 2021 Precipitation Report. NOAA’s National Weather Service. https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=PNSTBW&e=202107071915