Scientist: Why do so many Americans ask me about bombing a hurricane?

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Click here to share on LinkedIn (Opens in a new window)
• Click to email a friend (Opens in a new window)

Editor's Note: Adam Sobel is a professor at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University and the Fu School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Foundation. He is an atmospheric scientist and studies the extreme events and the risks they represent for human society. Sobel is the author of "Storm Surge," a book about Superstorm Sandy. Follow him on Twitter: @profadamsobel. The opinions expressed here belong exclusively to the author.

(CNN) - On Sunday, when the Atlantic hurricane season showed signs of life with the formation of tropical storm Dorian, Axios reported that “President Trump has repeatedly suggested to senior National Security officials to explore the use of nuclear bombs to prevent hurricanes from impacting the United States. " President Trump denies this report, but that has not prevented it from provoking a round of follow-up articles, criticisms on social networks and explanations from scientists about why bombing hurricanes is a bad idea.

I am not really interested in whether President Trump made the alleged recommendation or not. It certainly sounds like something he would say, but if he's embarrassed enough to deny it, that's good enough for me. I wish he felt the same about many other things he hasn't denied saying.

Me neither - despite my credentials and identity as a scientist - I want to write another explanation of why bombing hurricanes is a terrible idea. (Short version: it would not work, because a hurricane is much more powerful than a nuclear bomb. And in the meantime, it would release a large amount of radioactive material into the atmosphere, doing much more harm than good.)

I am more interested in the origin of the idea. Not who came up first and when, but why it keeps appearing, again and again, for so many years. Whether the president has said it or not this time, many people have done it - so many that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has created a page that explains why it is such a bad idea. And as terrifying as the idea seems - at least for those of us who have a relevant education and have spent a lot of time thinking about nuclear weapons, hurricanes or both - those who mention it have probably done so and continue to do so with good intentions. I see Trump as a tremendously malicious force in American politics and society, but I do not haggle hostility towards hurricanes. I can accept the possibility that, if he really suggested attacking them, he probably did it just because he thought he could protect people on his way.

Personally, I have been questioned about the nuclear idea many times by normal people who have appeared in public talks I have given about hurricanes. I'm not sure I wouldn't ask myself if I didn't know the answer.

But it is up to us to look a little below the surface of this benign and conscious curiosity. When we face a danger from our natural environment, why do some of us resort, even for a moment in our minds, to tremendously powerful and dangerous weapons of mass destruction?

Here is my answer attempt. Those of us who live in the richest neighborhoods of the modern world feel so isolated - by wealth and technology - from the physical realities of life on this planet that, when those realities threaten to affect us in ways we cannot rule out Immediately, we become impatient. Why can't our leaders make this problem go away by spending money, exercising military power or both? The idea that we may have to bow to the forces of nature, that we may have to change something about ourselves, whether in the short or long term, to accept the fact that we live on a planet that we cannot control. completely frustrates us greatly.

This is relevant, of course, for debates about the climate crisis. Behind almost every denial of the existence of that crisis is what those who study the problem call solution aversion. That is, hostility towards any proposed policy or action that allows the recognition of external physical limits (such as the fact that uncontrolled emissions of greenhouse gases are making life more and more dangerous for a large number of people and members of other species) that slow the momentum of economic growth. And this is not just a problem to the right of the political spectrum. Many of us who believe that the climate crisis is a serious problem - and I am no exception - do not behave as if it were, either in our individual actions or, more importantly, in our participation in the political process .

Instead of accepting that our collective interests require a broader vision, one that takes into account the physical realities of the non-human world, and that this might require an effort of one kind or another, it is very tempting to ask why the state You can't solve the problem for us by bombarding someone or something.

As the planet continues to heat up, policymakers pay more and more attention to the idea of ​​“geoengineering”: manipulate the environment to counteract the effects of climate change, for example, sending rockets or planes intentionally to put a lot dust in the stratosphere, in order to cool the earth by blocking sunlight. Although I strongly oppose this idea, I accept that discussing it is not something as crazy as it would be to discuss the nuclear bombardment of hurricanes.

But while we do it, we must continually look within ourselves and ask ourselves if it is something that attracts us because it is really the best option or because it allows us to continue thinking that the world revolves around us. Are we really trying to live according to the values ​​we appreciate? Or do we just want rockets, planes or bombs so that our problems disappear and we can continue as we are?