And in 2015, while America's costal cities begin to be engulfed by the sea, a member of the Republican administration will stand before the cameras and say:
"Of course we would have taken steps to avert this disaster, but honestly, nobody predicted that the oceans were going to rise this way."
Take a glass of water.
Put in some ice so that the ice is floating.
Mark the water line.
Leave the water and ice out over night so that the ice can melt.
Tell us how much the water level rose.
Back to the topic:
New Orleans: Venice Of The New World (the mosquitos notwithstanding....)
Lake Pontchartrain (SP?) looks to be about half the size of Rhode Island on a National Geographic map. That's a hell of a lot of water to hold back.....
Leave the water and ice out over night so that the ice can melt.
Tell us how much the water level rose.
Back to the topic:
New Orleans: Venice Of The New World (the mosquitos notwithstanding....)
Lake Pontchartrain (SP?) looks to be about half the size of Rhode Island on a National Geographic map. That's a hell of a lot of water to hold back.....
V/R,
Aries 1B
Wow. You went out of your way for an ignorant non sequitur.
Put an ice cube on a ledge next to the glass. Allow the melt water to flow into the glass. See the amount of water in the glass increase.
Ice melt sea level change assumes the melting of land ice, not ice floating on the sea.
Ice melt sea level change assumes the melting of land ice, not ice floating on the sea.
Technically correct, but sea ice does have an effect on climate:
Quote:
The amount of sea ice does not directly affect the sea level, not because sea ice generally is less a metre thick, but rather because it is floating. Indirectly, it does affect the sea level, through its effect on global temperatures. Its high albedo, compared with that of open water, leads to a positive temperature feedback as a result of solar heating. It inhibits the loss of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, and therefore it enhances the continentality of adjacent coastal areas. The formation of ice causes an increase of salinity in the adjacent water, since the ice formation excludes most of the salt. The increased salinity means a higher density, which fosters thermohaline subsidence of the water beneath the ice. Conversely, melting of the ice in summer leaves a layer of relatively low-density water on the sea surface.
The area of sea ice appears to be falling around the Arctic (1), but around Antarctica only in the Amundsen & Bellingshausen Sea (since 1973) (3). Gaps of open water within an area of sea ice are known as ?polynyas?. There is substantial heat loss from polynyas to the atmosphere, and consequent subsidence of the cooled water.
With all due respect Powerdoc, Holland's not exactly in a hurricane zone.
With the way storms in the Caribbean have been acting up lately, the chance of this happening again could be quite high.
Holland has a huge investment into its protection infrastructure relative to what the New Orleans area has. And you are correct, hurricanes (as in warm core tropical systems) do not affect Holland, but they do have a serious winter storm potential problem: The North Sea is shaped like a funnel, with a wide mouth in the north and a narrow neck towards the English Channel. If an exceptionally vigorous depression moves southeast across the eastern North Sea pulling in hurricane strength northwest to northerly winds behind it, combined with an exceptional high tide, this can cause the southern end of the North Sea to 'pile up' and top the dykes of Holland and the Fens district of East Anglia in the UK. This scenario happened in the winter of 1952 and two thousand people in Holland and England were killed by the floods, and it wasnt the worst version of what can happen in this weather situation.
Aries - fresh water ice melting in sea water raises the level slightly (your example is fresh/fresh). Most importantly, the land based ice is significant.
Total sea rise will be 270 feet if we melt everything. My house sits at 270 feet above sea level, so it will be beach property (+/- 30 feet from the crappy GPS, unfortunately).
This is not some abstract point that people normally disagree with.
It's not delta, it's lands taken to the sea to expand the territory.
Actually it is both: Holland is a delta of the Rhine and Maas rivers in which a lot of wet parts and lakes are diked in and pumped dry. See this article in the NY times (free registration required)
To me, it's all well and good to say "every city has it's problems, so if we abandon N.O. then we should abandon all the others." The fact of THIS situation is that New Orleans' "grandfather clause" wore out. Now a decision has to be made. Obviously it's going to be rebuilt, but I think based on everything we know it's really a terrible idea.
I just hope and pray that 30 or 40 years from now I don't have to see headlines saying, "New Orleans Again Destroyed: Thousands feared dead. Storm has eerie resemblence to 2005's Katrina."
To me, it's all well and good to say "every city has it's problems, so if we abandon N.O. then we should abandon all the others." The fact of THIS situation is that New Orleans' "grandfather clause" wore out. Now a decision has to be made. Obviously it's going to be rebuilt, but I think based on everything we know it's really a terrible idea.
I just hope and pray that 30 or 40 years from now I don't have to see headlines saying, "New Orleans Again Destroyed: Thousands feared dead. Storm has eerie resemblence to 2005's Katrina."
Hmm, they should have made the levees stronger and higher. That's not me who said this, but US expert in the fields.
I will not understand that US is able to spent billions dollars in an almost never ending war, and will not be able to fix the Levee between NO and the Pontchartain's lake.
PS the expert in the field is Jonh Rennie from the famous scientifical magazine : Scientific American. He predicated this issue in 2001.
why not make a new orleans replica somewhere nearby but in a safer place? they could keep the compact pattern and perhaps correct some glaring mistakes that may have existed. that would be a very american thing to do, i think, and i don't think there is anything wrong with that. plus, it would be a chance to come back from a disaster with a practical, unique, only-one-in-the-world solution. how much does it cost to build a city?
They're going to build new, stronger levees. Some part of the city will have to be raised, such as the Ninth Ward.
But to suggest that the city shouldn't be rebuilt ? that's like telling someone who lost and arm or a leg, that they can't get medical care and should just go die quietly.
Yes, it might have helped if the Bush Administration hadn't cut spending for levee repair ? of if the Clinton, Bush, or Reagan Administrations had taken the dire and accurate predictions seriously.
There's probably 5,000-10,000 people now dead because of politics as usual.
We don't need to leave New Orleans for dead. We do need a new political process that puts people first, though.
Go ahead and rebuild if they want. Just make so the city code requires every structure to be ready for a flood and that every new building permit requires people to come under the new tax system that is 100x what is it now to pay for all this.
Go ahead and rebuild if they want. Just make so the city code requires every structure to be ready for a flood and that every new building permit requires people to come under the new tax system that is 100x what is it now to pay for all this.
As an aside, it has just occurred to me that thus far the Bush PR pushback has been in two phases:
1) Shift blame to the locals
2) Emphasize that red tape and beaurocracy were the real villains here.
As an aside, it has just occurred to me that thus far the Bush PR pushback has been in two phases:
1) Shift blame to the locals
2) Emphasize that red tape and beaurocracy were the real villains here.
Step 3 will likely be "Small gummit!"
Even if some blame go to the locals, that will not excuse the two days of immobilism of the federal governement. Coming from the only superpower of the planet, and not a third rate countrie, this is really unbelievable.
The weakness of the protections of NO, and in particular the levee and waterpumps where a well known fact.
One terrible thing in our modern countrie, is that when security recquiere large investissement, and is not limited to the typing of a memo, we wait disasters, to make things happen.
In resume we can say that there is two things to consider in the prevention of this disaster :
- the lack of prevention (a result of three decades of relative inaction)
- the management of the crisis, with at least two days of inaction.
The responsabilities of the first and second point differ, but are real.
In resume we can say that there is two things to consider in the prevention of this disaster :
- the lack of prevention (a result of three decades of relative inaction)
- the management of the crisis, with at least two days of inaction.
The responsabilities of the first and second point differ, but are real.
What I'm wondering is how long it will be before Michael Brown 'takes one for the team'. He deserves to be canned anyway, I give it less than 4 weeks before the Bushites decide he is too much of a liability to be backed up by the Admin like he is now.
They are already spinning the 'FEMA was working right, the problem is at the State and Local level' story in an AP wire with no byline in today's paper, that talked about all the awesome things FEMA did to help after Katrina.
The biggest thing I regret about this so far is not setting up a video tape to record the news when the storm hit and immediately following, to see how the news changes in the coming days. Hello post-9/11 spin all over again.
What I'm wondering is how long it will be before Michael Brown 'takes one for the team'. He deserves to be canned anyway, I give it less than 4 weeks before the Bushites decide he is too much of a liability to be backed up by the Admin like he is now.
They are already spinning the 'FEMA was working right, the problem is at the State and Local level' story in an AP wire with no byline in today's paper, that talked about all the awesome things FEMA did to help after Katrina.
The biggest thing I regret about this so far is not setting up a video tape to record the news when the storm hit and immediately following, to see how the news changes in the coming days. Hello post-9/11 spin all over again.
They would try to spin, but this time it won't work. This time it's not US versus a rogue dictatorship nation. It's the management of an internal crisis. It's not also a question of politic color. A management of such a crisis is a question of decisions : no dogma here, no left no right.
The spin started when it was concluded that the only blame could be placed on FEMA/Bush. The fact that the Mayor delayed the evac order because of libaility reasons is not dealt with. The fact that the evac plan was criminally unrealistic is not dealt with. The fact that the Governor was not ready with the National Guard for the aftermath is not dealt with. The fact that the city building codes allowed every vital service to be disabled in a flood is not dealt with.
Anyone that wants to figure out the root cause of this disaster needs to put politics aside and start at the ground level. Why was the city not ready? Why was the state not ready? Why was the country not ready?
I know Bush is unpopular but if we believe the arm chair analysis here, all we need to do is wait out Bush, elect a new person and ... the core problem is solved. Which of course it isn't.
Actually it's not. Only like 10% of the 10,000 LA National Guard are deployed. So why weren't the other 8000 called up and ready to go? Honest question from me.
Comments
Originally posted by addabox
And in 2015, while America's costal cities begin to be engulfed by the sea, a member of the Republican administration will stand before the cameras and say:
"Of course we would have taken steps to avert this disaster, but honestly, nobody predicted that the oceans were going to rise this way."
Take a glass of water.
Put in some ice so that the ice is floating.
Mark the water line.
Leave the water and ice out over night so that the ice can melt.
Tell us how much the water level rose.
Back to the topic:
New Orleans: Venice Of The New World (the mosquitos notwithstanding....)
Lake Pontchartrain (SP?) looks to be about half the size of Rhode Island on a National Geographic map. That's a hell of a lot of water to hold back.....
V/R,
Aries 1B
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Take a glass of water.
Put in some ice so that the ice is floating.
Mark the water line.
Leave the water and ice out over night so that the ice can melt.
Tell us how much the water level rose.
Back to the topic:
New Orleans: Venice Of The New World (the mosquitos notwithstanding....)
Lake Pontchartrain (SP?) looks to be about half the size of Rhode Island on a National Geographic map. That's a hell of a lot of water to hold back.....
V/R,
Aries 1B
Wow. You went out of your way for an ignorant non sequitur.
Put an ice cube on a ledge next to the glass. Allow the melt water to flow into the glass. See the amount of water in the glass increase.
Ice melt sea level change assumes the melting of land ice, not ice floating on the sea.
Warm the water up. See it expand.
Originally posted by addabox
Ice melt sea level change assumes the melting of land ice, not ice floating on the sea.
Technically correct, but sea ice does have an effect on climate:
The amount of sea ice does not directly affect the sea level, not because sea ice generally is less a metre thick, but rather because it is floating. Indirectly, it does affect the sea level, through its effect on global temperatures. Its high albedo, compared with that of open water, leads to a positive temperature feedback as a result of solar heating. It inhibits the loss of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere, and therefore it enhances the continentality of adjacent coastal areas. The formation of ice causes an increase of salinity in the adjacent water, since the ice formation excludes most of the salt. The increased salinity means a higher density, which fosters thermohaline subsidence of the water beneath the ice. Conversely, melting of the ice in summer leaves a layer of relatively low-density water on the sea surface.
The area of sea ice appears to be falling around the Arctic (1), but around Antarctica only in the Amundsen & Bellingshausen Sea (since 1973) (3). Gaps of open water within an area of sea ice are known as ?polynyas?. There is substantial heat loss from polynyas to the atmosphere, and consequent subsidence of the cooled water.
Originally posted by Frank777
With all due respect Powerdoc, Holland's not exactly in a hurricane zone.
With the way storms in the Caribbean have been acting up lately, the chance of this happening again could be quite high.
Stronger water protection, should prevent the flooding again. BTW there is no way of preventing the impact of the wind.
If you take hurricanes in consideration, a big part of the south is doomed.
Originally posted by Frank777
With all due respect Powerdoc, Holland's not exactly in a hurricane zone.
With the way storms in the Caribbean have been acting up lately, the chance of this happening again could be quite high.
Holland has a huge investment into its protection infrastructure relative to what the New Orleans area has. And you are correct, hurricanes (as in warm core tropical systems) do not affect Holland, but they do have a serious winter storm potential problem: The North Sea is shaped like a funnel, with a wide mouth in the north and a narrow neck towards the English Channel. If an exceptionally vigorous depression moves southeast across the eastern North Sea pulling in hurricane strength northwest to northerly winds behind it, combined with an exceptional high tide, this can cause the southern end of the North Sea to 'pile up' and top the dykes of Holland and the Fens district of East Anglia in the UK. This scenario happened in the winter of 1952 and two thousand people in Holland and England were killed by the floods, and it wasnt the worst version of what can happen in this weather situation.
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Take a glass of water.
Put in some ice so that the ice is floating.
Aries - fresh water ice melting in sea water raises the level slightly (your example is fresh/fresh). Most importantly, the land based ice is significant.
Total sea rise will be 270 feet if we melt everything. My house sits at 270 feet above sea level, so it will be beach property (+/- 30 feet from the crappy GPS, unfortunately).
This is not some abstract point that people normally disagree with.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
It's not delta, it's lands taken to the sea to expand the territory.
Actually it is both: Holland is a delta of the Rhine and Maas rivers in which a lot of wet parts and lakes are diked in and pumped dry. See this article in the NY times (free registration required)
I just hope and pray that 30 or 40 years from now I don't have to see headlines saying, "New Orleans Again Destroyed: Thousands feared dead. Storm has eerie resemblence to 2005's Katrina."
Originally posted by CosmoNut
To me, it's all well and good to say "every city has it's problems, so if we abandon N.O. then we should abandon all the others." The fact of THIS situation is that New Orleans' "grandfather clause" wore out. Now a decision has to be made. Obviously it's going to be rebuilt, but I think based on everything we know it's really a terrible idea.
I just hope and pray that 30 or 40 years from now I don't have to see headlines saying, "New Orleans Again Destroyed: Thousands feared dead. Storm has eerie resemblence to 2005's Katrina."
Hmm, they should have made the levees stronger and higher. That's not me who said this, but US expert in the fields.
I will not understand that US is able to spent billions dollars in an almost never ending war, and will not be able to fix the Levee between NO and the Pontchartain's lake.
PS the expert in the field is Jonh Rennie from the famous scientifical magazine : Scientific American. He predicated this issue in 2001.
They're going to build new, stronger levees. Some part of the city will have to be raised, such as the Ninth Ward.
But to suggest that the city shouldn't be rebuilt ? that's like telling someone who lost and arm or a leg, that they can't get medical care and should just go die quietly.
Yes, it might have helped if the Bush Administration hadn't cut spending for levee repair ? of if the Clinton, Bush, or Reagan Administrations had taken the dire and accurate predictions seriously.
There's probably 5,000-10,000 people now dead because of politics as usual.
We don't need to leave New Orleans for dead. We do need a new political process that puts people first, though.
Originally posted by PBook12
Go ahead and rebuild if they want. Just make so the city code requires every structure to be ready for a flood and that every new building permit requires people to come under the new tax system that is 100x what is it now to pay for all this.
As an aside, it has just occurred to me that thus far the Bush PR pushback has been in two phases:
1) Shift blame to the locals
2) Emphasize that red tape and beaurocracy were the real villains here.
Step 3 will likely be "Small gummit!"
Originally posted by midwinter
As an aside, it has just occurred to me that thus far the Bush PR pushback has been in two phases:
1) Shift blame to the locals
2) Emphasize that red tape and beaurocracy were the real villains here.
Step 3 will likely be "Small gummit!"
Even if some blame go to the locals, that will not excuse the two days of immobilism of the federal governement. Coming from the only superpower of the planet, and not a third rate countrie, this is really unbelievable.
The weakness of the protections of NO, and in particular the levee and waterpumps where a well known fact.
One terrible thing in our modern countrie, is that when security recquiere large investissement, and is not limited to the typing of a memo, we wait disasters, to make things happen.
In resume we can say that there is two things to consider in the prevention of this disaster :
- the lack of prevention (a result of three decades of relative inaction)
- the management of the crisis, with at least two days of inaction.
The responsabilities of the first and second point differ, but are real.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
In resume we can say that there is two things to consider in the prevention of this disaster :
- the lack of prevention (a result of three decades of relative inaction)
- the management of the crisis, with at least two days of inaction.
The responsabilities of the first and second point differ, but are real.
What I'm wondering is how long it will be before Michael Brown 'takes one for the team'. He deserves to be canned anyway, I give it less than 4 weeks before the Bushites decide he is too much of a liability to be backed up by the Admin like he is now.
They are already spinning the 'FEMA was working right, the problem is at the State and Local level' story in an AP wire with no byline in today's paper, that talked about all the awesome things FEMA did to help after Katrina.
Has anyone at FEMA or DHS actually READ the National Response Plan??
The biggest thing I regret about this so far is not setting up a video tape to record the news when the storm hit and immediately following, to see how the news changes in the coming days. Hello post-9/11 spin all over again.
Originally posted by iPoster
What I'm wondering is how long it will be before Michael Brown 'takes one for the team'. He deserves to be canned anyway, I give it less than 4 weeks before the Bushites decide he is too much of a liability to be backed up by the Admin like he is now.
They are already spinning the 'FEMA was working right, the problem is at the State and Local level' story in an AP wire with no byline in today's paper, that talked about all the awesome things FEMA did to help after Katrina.
Has anyone at FEMA or DHS actually READ the National Response Plan??
The biggest thing I regret about this so far is not setting up a video tape to record the news when the storm hit and immediately following, to see how the news changes in the coming days. Hello post-9/11 spin all over again.
They would try to spin, but this time it won't work. This time it's not US versus a rogue dictatorship nation. It's the management of an internal crisis. It's not also a question of politic color. A management of such a crisis is a question of decisions : no dogma here, no left no right.
Anyone that wants to figure out the root cause of this disaster needs to put politics aside and start at the ground level. Why was the city not ready? Why was the state not ready? Why was the country not ready?
I know Bush is unpopular but if we believe the arm chair analysis here, all we need to do is wait out Bush, elect a new person and ... the core problem is solved. Which of course it isn't.