New Orleans - WHY?

Page 2 of 5  
Anyone that can please donate to the Hurricane relief fund via the Salvation Army or to the American Red Cross's National Disaster Fund. Its going to to take years to get these poor people back on their feet again. Thank You
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Obviously, where people settle and build homes of any kind has everything to do with immediate needs and opportunities, i.e jobs. Considerations of possible future dangers are far back in anyone's mind, and will of course be downplayed by the real estate developers/speculators.
Besides, most people don't know enough to realize what bad or good construction is, and it's too easy for builders and real estate developers to cheat. A well built home in a good, safe location is beyond the reach of everyone but a small minority. And as was noted above, even people with considerable means do it wrong too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
People of the USA
The weather god apologises for the unfortunate collateral damage & loss of life to the people of America in his efforts to point out to your government that global warming is a problem.
The USA is one of the worlds largest producer of emissions contributing to global warming and has a government not interested in doing anything about it. If you do not take this hint, then the weather god will mobilise his full forces and implement a plan for full regime change in the USA.
Drive smaller more efficient cars or learn to swim, such a simple transportation choice !!
Kind Regards The weather god & his war War Against Pollution
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Marcus wrote:

loss of

government
contributing to

about
Borrowing from http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200508300805.asp
If cable TV had existed in 1886, everyone in the U.S. might have been whipped into a hurricane panic. A record seven hurricanes made landfall that year, including a Category 4 storm that hit Texas and would have had on-the-spot cable newscasters dramatically fighting the wind to deliver their reports. All during the 1890s, reporters could have done the same along the Atlantic seaboard, as it was hammered by more powerful hurricanes than it would be in any decade except the 1950s.
Hurricane Katrina, which slammed the Gulf Coast and got eyewall-to-eyewall media coverage, is sure to increase the sense that there is an epidemic of hurricanes (along, of course, with an epidemic of shark attacks and missing blond girls). Which inevitably raises the question: "What can we do about it?" For some scientists and activists working on the assumption that anything they don't like must be caused by industrial emissions the answer is stop global warming.
There is hardly an undesirable natural event, from wildfires to hurricanes, that former Vice President Al Gore hasn't blamed on global warming. As if it weren't for fossil-fuel emissions, the weather would always be predictable and pleasant. An outfit called Scientists and Engineers for Change put up a billboard in Florida before last year's presidential election stating it starkly: "Global warming = Worse hurricanes. George Bush just doesn't get it." Ah, yes: Why are Bush and the neocons focused on the war in Iraq, when there is a very real threat to the U.S. they should be addressing in the waters of the Atlantic?
Has global warming increased the frequency of hurricanes? One of the nation's foremost hurricane experts, William Gray, points out that if global warming is at work, cyclones should be increasing not just in the Atlantic but elsewhere, in the West Pacific, East Pacific, and the Indian Ocean. They aren't. The number of cyclones per year worldwide fluctuates pretty steadily between 80 and 100. There's actually been a small overall decline in tropical cyclones since 1995, and Atlantic hurricanes declined from 1970 to 1994, even as the globe was heating up.
It seems that Atlantic hurricanes come in spurts, or as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration puts it in more technical language, "a quasi-cyclic multi-decade regime that alternates between active and quiet phases." The late 1920s through the 1960s were active; the 1970s to early 1990s quiet; and since 1995 as anyone living in Florida or Gulfport, Miss., can tell you seems to be another active phase.
But if hurricanes aren't more frequent, are they more powerful? Warm water fuels hurricanes, so the theory is that as the ocean's surface heats up, hurricanes will pack more punch. An article in Nature after questionable jiggering with the historical wind data argues that hurricanes have doubled in strength because of global warming. Climatologist Patrick Michaels counters that if hurricanes had doubled in their power it would be obvious to everyone and there would be no need to write controversial papers about it.
Indeed, if you adjust for population growth and skyrocketing property values, hurricanes don't appear to be any more destructive today. According to the work of Roger Pielke of the University of Colorado, of the top five most destructive storms this century, only one occurred after 1950 Hurricane Andrew in 1992. An NOAA analysis says there have been fewer Category 4 storms throughout the past 35 years than would have been expected given 20th-century averages.
None of this data matters particularly, since proponents of global warming will continue to link warming with hurricanes. It generates headlines in a way that debates about tiny increments of warming don't. And it feeds a conceit that is oddly comforting: that whatever is wrong with the world is caused by us and fixable by us. Alas, it's not so. Mother Nature can be a cruel and unpredictable mistress, and sometimes all we can do is head for the high ground.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Albro wrote:

....
....
Nicely put, Jerry.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I will say this though. The ocean level rising due to global warming do exacerbate the problems and damage when hurricanes hit.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If it is in fact "global warming" and not just part of a 500 year weather cycle.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

And even if we were to attribute it, a few <inches> (at most) as opposed to 20+ <ft> storm surge is nonsense...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It is not. nonsense. Remember back to physics class: There's huge difference in the amount of water being taken up into the air, depending on the slight difference of water temperature in the Atlantic between 26C and 26.5. That difference may cause a difference of 5 to 10 feet in storm surge....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
geographer wrote:

???
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

No, but hurricanes don't happen over a small area either. And as inches add up, places that are a foot or two above sea level will start washing out even if the hurricane comes fairly close.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thank you, but not my work, merely quoting the good work of others... -J
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Albro schrieb:

....>
.... If you see it that way: How many hurricanes do you need, until you are convinced? It's simply not the question, whether there's a water-tight scientific evidence. If the value - and I'm not only talking money terms of U.S. property here - at risk is very high, you should keep the risk very low. Example: Imagine 10 glasses of water, one poisonned. You would juge it an acceptable risk in some game show, if someone else drinks. For yourself you would need 100 glasses to one to accept the risk to drink. For your kids, you wouldn't even accept 1000 glasses to one, if you know they will drink. And it's not only the US-Americans at stake here. Would you accept, if Canada would run unsafe Nuclear Plants close to the US-Border simply argueing: Heck, an accident will kill just US-citizens... Certainly not. In most cases these "stronger-than-ever" hurricanes devastate other states around the Gulf. This time, the global warmers have recieved a message... The rest of the world hopes, that they will understand this time. If not, well more messages are already under way. That's cruel, extremely cruell -- I just saw the TV-reports with victims desparately shouting up to the helicopters....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's bullshit. If it can't support itself under scientific scrutiny, and global warming myths currently CANNOT, then it has no business being repeated as if it were anything close to resembling facts.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If there's bullshit being spread, it's your claim that global warming is a myth. Global warming is based on a lot of solid evidence and is a fact. What is in doubt is whether the causes of gloal warming are related to human activities and whether changing those activities will stall or reverse global warming.
Mike
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Daly wrote:

Well, it is a theory of some, declared to be fact by others. Much of the evidence isn't all that solid imo.

Much is semantics..."global warming" is the typical buzzword for the most extreme proponents of doom much like yelling "asbestos". If one wants to back off a little and look at the possibilities and consider them in the light of what historical and geologic evidence, then that's another kettle of fish altogether.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 12:47:19 -0500, Duane Bozarth
Hurricanes more/less frequent /powerful:

Nice rational post Duane.
It's been about twelve or more years since I did any reading on this, but as I recall, a major element of the studies pointing to "greenhouse gases" as a possible causative agent in warming was state of the art (at the time) computer models. The outcome of those computer models was very sensitive to the bi-directional global transfer coefficients between atmospheric CO2 and ocean water. At the time (and probably still today) there was no conclusive data as to what those transfer coefficients are on a global average.
It's possible to measure a coefficient on a micro scale in a laboratory, but the result is, as you can well imagine, very dependent on parameters such as water and air temps, water chemistry and constituents (e.g. algae in the water) and mechanical agitation of the water/air interface e.g. by wind, etc.
The resulting micro-scale measurements are virtually useless on a macro/global scale because of the enormous range of the parameters by time and location. Nevertheless, they could server as max/min estimates to run the computer models.
Now here's the interesting part. When they ran the models, only a very small variation of the CO2/OCEAN xfer coeff had a very large effect on the outcome. In other words, varying the crucial input assumptions within a small very reasonable and probable range made a difference as to whether or not the observed warming was due to the CO2 or not.
This did not surprise me as I had a good deal of experience developing radiological/environmental models, but I was a little disappointed that the state of *their* science/art wasn't any better than the state of *my* science/art.
--
To email me directly, remove CLUTTER.


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Global warming started soon after we stopped insulating with asbestos. Bring back asbestos and bring back the ice age.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well said. Global climate change is an ongoing fact. It always changes. It is only the arrogance of man to think we caused it or that we can stop it. We should be planning on how we will live on a warmer planet, not simply throwing another virgin in the volcano, hoping we can stop it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

A few months ago I watched a program on global warming. The gist of it was they were tracking a correlation between the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere and temp. They were accessing ancient ice core samples to determine the historic CO2 levels.
They had a nice chart showing temperature fluctuations did indeed march right along in unison with the CO2 levels. Over thousands of years the range of the fluctuation remained essentially consistent.
They showed that we are in an upswing right now, right on schedule. However, while the historic chart fluctuated in the middle of the range, the present readings went well off the chart.
Yes, the earth does have temperature cycles as a natural occurance but never has it ranged this far off the norm. I'd say we are in for some more weather changes.
To arrogantly ignore the possibility that humans could be responsible for some of the global changes is like sticking your head in the sand...

DJ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.