http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=52&story_id=23224&name=US+pollution+partly+to+blame+for+Katrina%3A+German+minister

At least according to Germany.

So, is it global warming (which apparently only we are responsible for, per Germany)?

Or is it a natural cycle in the number of tropical storms per year, where one cat 5 happens to hit a highly populated area?

[Edited on August 30, 2005 at 11:10 PM. Reason : ugh, that looks like crap. how do i fix?]

[Edited on August 30, 2005 at 11:12 PM. Reason : argh. i feel like such a noob]

8/30/2005 11:09:43 PM

the flooding was

8/30/2005 11:13:03 PM

Ok, sure, the flooding. This is what happens when you build a city surrounded by water, below sea level. The levees could have been higher (or better constructed, I don't know by what mechanism it failed), and the pumps could have been better designed or placed.

But I am not convinced that the hurricane is due to american-caused global warming.

8/30/2005 11:30:28 PM

the levies prevented silt from being depositied in the area and made the city sink more

should have not fucked with nature

8/30/2005 11:32:35 PM

Honestly? Is this thread for real? Ok, just checking

The storm surge was 20 ft, last I heard. The ocean has risen half an inch in the past 100 years. Lets assume half that was man made. Now, America emits about 25% of the greenhouse gasses. Therefore, 6.25% of the flooding was the fault of America.

8/30/2005 11:46:45 PM

^^yep

as for global warming...nah, this storm isn't really anything out of the ordinary in the grand scale of time. it just seems worse because it hit new orleans which was so densely populated and vulnerable to flooding. that global warming may contribute to a more unstable climate is certainly possible, but it will take at least several more decades of evidence to even begin to prove that conclusively. doesn't mean we shouldn't cut back on greenhouse gas emissions though.

[Edited on August 30, 2005 at 11:51 PM. Reason : ^]

8/30/2005 11:50:47 PM

^^ I have never read more of ignorant shit in one post.

And no, I don't think flooding was America's fault.

[Edited on August 30, 2005 at 11:52 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2005 11:51:56 PM

See, if we had signed the Kyoto Accords, then world climate would have stabilized the very next day.

8/31/2005 10:44:18 AM

hey global warming is a FACT guys...i mean, its not like the Earth goes through cycles that take hundreds of thousands of years...documented history of the last few hundred years shows that temperatures have risen...its clearly the USA's fault

8/31/2005 10:49:27 AM

I'm riding my bike to work from now on so that a hurricane doesn't hit my beachhouse.

8/31/2005 11:36:10 AM

Quote :

"^^ I have never read more of ignorant shit in one post. And no, I don't think flooding was America's fault."

yet you do nothing to correct it because youre just as fucking ignorant and stupid.

8/31/2005 11:48:47 AM

Quote :

"Ok, sure, the flooding. This is what happens when you build a city surrounded by water, below sea level. The levees could have been higher (or better constructed, I don't know by what mechanism it failed), and the pumps could have been better designed or placed."

wouldnt the blame for that fall squarely on the french? they founded the damn city.

its not like W said "hey lets build a city on the coast below sea level"

[Edited on August 31, 2005 at 11:56 AM. Reason : we should blame the british for houses crumbling on the erroding outer banks]

8/31/2005 11:55:52 AM

we should blame humanity for not having the same grasp of coastal processes back in the day as we do now

and of course we should blame the French...smelly wimps

8/31/2005 12:35:14 PM

Quote :

"Houston Chronicle 12/01/01 KEEPING ITS HEAD ABOVE WATER New Orleans faces doomsday scenario By ERIC BERGER Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Science Writer New Orleans is sinking. And its main buffer from a hurricane, the protective Mississippi River delta, is quickly eroding away, leaving the historic city perilously close to disaster. So vulnerable, in fact, that earlier this year the Federal Emergency Management Agency ranked the potential damage to New Orleans as among the three likeliest, most castastrophic disasters facing this country. The other two? A massive earthquake in San Francisco, and, almost prophetically, a terrorist attack on New York City. The New Orleans hurricane scenario may be the deadliest of all. In the face of an approaching storm, scientists say, the city's less-than-adequate evacuation routes would strand 250,000 people or more, and probably kill one of 10 left behind as the city drowned under 20 feet of water. Thousands of refugees could land in Houston. Economically, the toll would be shattering. Southern Louisiana produces one-third of the country's seafood, one-fifth of its oil and one-quarter of its natural gas. The city's tourism, lifeblood of the French Quarter, would cease to exist. The Big Easy might never recover."

8/31/2005 12:37:22 PM

Quote :

"Did New Orleans Catastrophe Have to Happen? 'Times-Picayune' Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues By Will Bunch Published: August 30, 2005 9:00 PM ET PHILADELPHIAEven though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans late on Tuesday. That's because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city's 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it's level with the massive lake. New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts. When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA. Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside. Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars"

8/31/2005 12:45:44 PM

you can blame the lack of funds on money that didnt have to go towards a war that didnt have to happen

but you also cant expect a city in that scenario to live on forever without constant funding to refortify all their levees

i mean...if i built a city on top of a mountain and had to constantly pay to reinforce the mountain...and an earthquake hit and some of the money that normally went to artificially preserve the mountain's stability had gone to a war, does that mean i didnt know the dangers of having a city on a mountain?

you cant fuck with mother nature and you cant blame anthropomorphic decisions for a NATURAL disaster

8/31/2005 12:55:21 PM

Ok, forgive me for having to once again be the one to point out the semantic problems here, but the german minister said the U.S. was partly to blame

Nukewolf instantly twists his words to say that we are fully to blame

Quote :

"which apparently only we are responsible for, per Germany"

Now, do I agree with the minister? No. I don't think this storm is directly caused by global warming, and as spaced guy said

Quote :

"it just seems worse because it hit new orleans which was so densely populated and vulnerable to flooding. "

but seriously, folks, this shit of making what people say seem worse than it is is just retarded.

8/31/2005 12:55:22 PM

whose fault will it be when the big one hits Cali?

many people will die, the NASDAQ will be crushed, and it will all happen without a warning system

8/31/2005 3:07:42 PM

And ~1/10 of the US economy will disappear.

(Although I suppose that's why you made the NASDAQ remark, but still...)

8/31/2005 3:14:17 PM

pryderi -you are fucking disgrace. An embarrassment not only to your country - but to the human race. You hatred towards the President is so out to lunch – you make salsburyboy seem reasonable.

8/31/2005 3:21:27 PM

Quote :

"whose fault will it be when the big one hits Cali?"

bush of course, everything is his fault

8/31/2005 3:36:10 PM

i blame wienke.



[Edited on August 31, 2005 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ,]

8/31/2005 3:38:15 PM

^ the Gubernator get some blame too ok

8/31/2005 3:38:31 PM

Quote :

"Listen, lad. I've built this kingdom up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. All the kings said I was daft to build a castle in a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the fourth one stayed up. An' that's what your gonna get, lad -- the strongest castle in these islands."

somewhat relevant to building a city 20 feet below sea level bordering the largest river in the country and a huge lake...

8/31/2005 3:44:03 PM

haha, very poignant, sir. very poignant.

8/31/2005 4:45:42 PM

^^ well if you are building on top of the ruins, by the 4th time, i guess you would be sufficiently high not to be affected by floods

8/31/2005 5:19:45 PM

Global warming is only a theory. I believe in intelligent warming.

8/31/2005 5:28:06 PM

oops

[Edited on August 31, 2005 at 5:35 PM. Reason : oop]

8/31/2005 5:34:38 PM

8/31/2005 5:35:05 PM

8/31/2005 7:10:35 PM

9/1/2005 4:13:41 AM

Quote :

"GGMon:pryderi -you are fucking disgrace. An embarrassment not only to your country - but to the human race. You hatred towards the President is so out to lunch – you make salsburyboy seem reasonable."

I like how since you can't hack it with him in a debate you resort to petty 5th grade name calling. I'm just glad that you're not on my side of the isle. At least aaronburro says something halfway intelligent at times.

9/1/2005 4:22:22 AM

haha i was looking for a picture of the lost city of atlanta for this thread yesterday

9/1/2005 7:05:16 AM

I needed to be said.

9/1/2005 7:13:10 AM

Quote :

"Giant hurricanes are rare, but they are not new. And they are not increasing. To the contrary. Just go to the website of the National Hurricane Center and check out a table that lists hurricanes by category and decade. The peak for major hurricanes (categories 3,4,5) came in the decades of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when such storms averaged 9 per decade. In the 1960s, there were 6 such storms; in the 1970s, 4; in the 1980s, 5; in the 1990s, 5; and for 2001-04, there were 3. Category 4 and 5 storms were also more prevalent in the past than they are now. As for Category 5 storms, there have been only three since the 1850s: in the decades of the 1930s, 1960s and 1990s."

http://www.techcentralstation.com/083105JKG.html

9/1/2005 1:58:42 PM

you know, a serious drop in the number of hurricanes could also mean a dramaticc shift in climate.

9/1/2005 2:05:29 PM

OMG THERE'S A SERIOUS INCREASE IN POWERFUL STORMS! IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING THAT WE'RE CAUSING!!!!

no, wait, hold on...

OMG THERE'S A SERIOUS DECREASE IN POWERFUL STORMS! IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING THAT WE'RE CAUSING!!!!

9/1/2005 2:18:16 PM

Wait, did you delude yourself into believing anyone here was saying this wacky-ass planet's climate never changed?!?!

I know, for a fact, it is just a matter of time until 10 category five hurricanes hit New Orleans in the same year! I can say that, because the planet probably has another 4 billion years left in her, and the law of probability requires some years to be shit to make up for other years where nothing happens.

9/1/2005 2:24:49 PM

terrorists put a heater in the ocean

9/1/2005 2:38:01 PM

Quote :

"well if you are building on top of the ruins, by the 4th time, i guess you would be sufficiently high not to be affected by floods "

9/1/2005 2:47:09 PM

Quote :

"OMG THERE'S A SERIOUS INCREASE IN POWERFUL STORMS! IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING THAT WE'RE CAUSING!!!! no, wait, hold on... OMG THERE'S A SERIOUS DECREASE IN POWERFUL STORMS! IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING THAT WE'RE CAUSING!!!! "

that's not what I said. What I was commenting on was how that article was trying to say that actually global warming didn't cause any problems, because the number of storms was decreasing.

storms need to happen. If we started not having as many, that could, also, be attributed to a climate shift. That doesn't mean we caused the shift.

9/1/2005 2:49:08 PM

Why do storms need to happen? It is on some zen metaphysical level that they must occur? Because I know of no scientific reason why the Earth NEEDS giant spiralling collections of fast moving air. Sure, thunderstorms help cool the planet, but huricanes are whole other beast. The planets atmosphere would work perfectly well without hurricanes, thank you very much. Just like the Earth would work without earthquakes, cities without criminal building contractors, and society without you.

9/1/2005 3:13:27 PM

Quote :

"hey global warming is a FACT guys...i mean, its not like the Earth goes through cycles that take hundreds of thousands of years...documented history of the last few hundred years shows that temperatures have risen...its clearly the USA's fault "

Umm...

Documented history of the "last few hundred years" can now prove that the earth's temperature doesn't cycle through a period of "hundreds of thousands of years" how exactly?

Sorry my sarcasm meter blinked out on me there for a second. It is better now.

[Edited on September 1, 2005 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

9/1/2005 3:26:49 PM

Quote :

"OMG THERE'S A SERIOUS INCREASE IN POWERFUL STORMS! IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING THAT WE'RE CAUSING!!!! no, wait, hold on... OMG THERE'S A SERIOUS DECREASE IN POWERFUL STORMS! IT MUST BE GLOBAL WARMING THAT WE'RE CAUSING!!!!"

9/1/2005 3:43:21 PM

Quote :

"Why do storms need to happen? It is on some zen metaphysical level that they must occur? Because I know of no scientific reason why the Earth NEEDS giant spiralling collections of fast moving air. Sure, thunderstorms help cool the planet, but huricanes are whole other beast. The planets atmosphere would work perfectly well without hurricanes, thank you very much. Just like the Earth would work without earthquakes, cities without criminal building contractors, and society without you."

It's a good thing you have likely never taken a meteorology class because you just n00bed all over yourself. Hurricanes ARE heat transporters. That is their function. They are big and powerful to move lots of energy from the equtiorial region to northern latitudes. Convection/air mass thunderstorms are very small scale resulting in evaporational cooling over just a small area. Hurricanes are natures way of releiving heat tension built up in the northern hemisphere (in our summer time)by insolation (not spelled wrong).
I am sorry if you built your precious cities in the path of hurricanes, but don't blame them when your stuff gets blown over. As for earthquakes, you'll have to take that up with a geology student.

9/1/2005 4:32:27 PM

So wait, let me get this straight, are you saying the Earth's atmospheric system would break down and we'd all die of one year, any year, there were no hurricanes?

While they may transport heat, there are other mechanism that can do that work, such as ocean currents and wind moving below 100 miles per hour. That said, I think there has been at least one year when not a single hurricane of mention was reported.

9/1/2005 10:40:51 PM

Mother Nature called and said she wanted her wetlands back.

9/2/2005 12:07:24 AM

9/2/2005 3:23:15 AM

Quote :

"So wait, let me get this straight, are you saying the Earth's atmospheric system would break down and we'd all die of one year, any year, there were no hurricanes? "

Hurricanes are part of the "atmospheric system", so yes. They are the kinetic result from the release of potential energy stored from heating. Not that "we'd all die" like you want to sensationalize, but it's a good bet that the equtorial region would be uninhabitable due to excessive heat. Next, you're going to ask me to try and justify tornadoes. And all I can say to that is welcome to the club of trying to answer that eternal question.

Quote :

"While they may transport heat, there are other mechanism that can do that work, such as ocean currents and wind moving below 100 miles per hour. That said, I think there has been at least one year when not a single hurricane of mention was reported."

Ocean currents are already doing their part to move heat and often work below the ocean surface. Hurricanes derive their energy from the ocean surface itself and move it convectively to other locations. Plain and simple storm, all storms, are atmospheric stablizers. Hurricanes start out as ordinarty convective thunderstorms but amass under the right conditions to become hurricanes. As for the years without hurricanes, I'd like for you to find me a year where there has not been a hurricane somewhere on the globe. I think you're failing to realize how much energy a hurricane takes to power. That energy has to come from somewhere (the sun) and if that energy is left stagnant it does have profound remifications on the area of its location.

9/2/2005 8:35:03 AM

lonesnark,

It's over. you've been uber-pwnt. You spoke out on something you know nothing about, and you were completely wrong. It's ok. We all make mistakes.

Sincerely,
me

9/2/2005 8:40:43 AM