What REALLY Caused Hurricane Katrina? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-05-2005, 08:59 AM   #16
Forum Moderator
 
ramblin rose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 12,861
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Here you go, ranking by intensity:

http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pastint.shtml

Rank
Hurricane
Year
Category (at landfall)
Minimum Pressure (mb)
MinimumPressure (in)
1 Unnamed (FL Keys) 1935 5 892 26.35
2 Camille (MS, SE LA, VA) 1969 5 909 26.84
3 Andrew (SE FL, SE LA) 1992 5 922 27.23
4 TX (Indianola) 1886 4 925 27.31
5 Unnamed (FL Keys, S TX) 1919 4 927 27.37
6 Unnamed (Lake Okeechobee FL) 1928 4 929 27.43
7 Donna (FL, Eastern U.S.) 1960 4 930 27.46
8 Unnamed (New Orleans LA) 1915 4 931 27.49
8 Carla (N & Cent. TX) 1961 4 931 27.49
10 LA (Last Island) 1856 4 934 27.58
10 Hugo (SC) 1989 4 934 27.58
12 Unnamed (Miami FL, MS, AL, Pensacola FL) 1926 4 935 27.61
13 Unnamed (Galveston TX) 1900 4 936 27.64
14 Unnamed GA/FL (Brunswick, GA) 1898 4 938 27.70
14 Hazel (SC, NC) 1954 4 938 27.70
16 Unnamed (SE FL, SE LA, MS) 1947 4 940 27.76
17 Unnamed (N TX) 1932 4 941 27.79
17 Charley (Eastern U.S.) 2004 4 941 27.79
19 Gloria (Eastern U.S.) 1985 3a 942 27.82
19 Opal (NW FL, AL) 1995 3a 942 27.82
21 Unnamed (Central FL) 1888 3 945 27.91
21 Unnamed (E NC) 1899 3 945 27.91
21 Audrey (SW LA, N TX) 1957 4b 945 27.91
21 Unnamed (Galveston TX) 1915 4b 945 27.91
21 Celia (S TX) 1970 3 945 27.91
21 Allen (S TX) 1980 3 945 27.91
27 Unnamed (New England) 1938 3 946 27.94
27 Frederic (AL, MS) 1979 3 946 27.94
27 Ivan (AL, NW FL) 2004 3 946 27.94
30 Unnamed (NE U.S.) 1944 3 947 27.97
30 Unnamed (SC, NC) 1906 3 947 27.97
32 Unnamed (LA Chenier Caminanda) 1893 3 948 27.99
32 Betsy (SE FL, SE LA) 1965 3 948 27.99
32 Unnamed (SE FL, NW FL) 1929 3 948 27.99
32 Unnamed (SE FL) 1933 3 948 27.99
32 Unnamed (S TX) 1916 3 948 27.99
32 Unnamed (MS, AL) 1916 3 948 27.99
38 Unnamed (NW FL) 1882 3 949 28.02
38 Diana (NC) 1984 3c 949 28.02
38 Unnamed (S TX) 1933 3 949 28.02
41 Unnamed (GA/SC) 1854 3 950 28.05
41 Unnamed (LA/MS) 1855 3 950 28.05
41 Unnamed (LA/MS/AL) 1860 3 950 28.05
41 Unnamed (LA) 1879 3 950 28.05
41 Beulah (S TX) 1967 3 950 28.05
41 Hilda (Central LA) 1964 3 950 28.05
41 Gracie (SC) 1959 3 950 28.05
41 Unnamed (Central TX) 1942 3 950 28.05
41 Jeanne (FL) 2004 3 950 28.05
50 Unnamed (SE FL) 1945 3 951 28.08
50 Bret (S TX) 1999 3 951 28.08
52 Unnamed (Grand Isle LA) 1909 3 952 28.11
52 Unnamed (Tampa Bay FL) 1921 3 952 28.11
52 Carmen (Central LA) 1974 3 952 28.11
54 Unnamed (SC/NC) 1885 3 953 28.14
54 Unnamed (S FL) 1906 3 953 28.14
56 Unnamed (GA/SC) 1893 3 954 28.17
56 Edna (New England) 1954 3 954 28.17
56 Unnamed (SE FL) 1949 3 954 28.17
56 Fran (NC) 1996 3 954 28.17
60 Unnamed (SE FL) 1871 3 955 28.20
60 Unnamed (LA/TX) 1886 3 955 28.20
60 Unnamed (SC/NC) 1893 3 955 28.20
60 Unnamed (NW FL) 1894 3 955 28.20
60 Eloise (NW FL) 1975 3 955 28.20
60 King (SE FL) 1950 3 955 28.20
60 Unnamed (Central LA) 1926 3 955 28.20
60 Unnamed (SW LA) 1918 3 955 28.20
__________________

__________________
ramblinrose[at]interference.com
ramblin rose is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 08:59 AM   #17
The Fly
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 209
Local Time: 09:19 AM
Sorry, there is a link within that link at the top. My bad.
__________________

__________________
Abomb-baby is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:17 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
DrTeeth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Q continuum
Posts: 4,770
Local Time: 05:19 PM

Anthopogenic Effects on Tropical Cyclone Activity

Everything you've ever wanted to know about this subject, especially if you visit his homepage.

Some interesting stuff:

Quote:
1.) Q: Is global warming causing more hurricanes?

A: No. The global, annual frequency of tropical cyclones (the generic, meteorological term for the storm that is called a tropical storm or hurricane in the Atlantic region) is about 90, plus or minus 10. There is no indication whatsoever of a long-term trend in this number.
Quote:
3.) Q: Is the intensity of hurricanes increasing with time?

A: There is some evidence that it is. Records of hurricane activity worldwide show an upswing of both the maximum wind speed in and the duration of hurricanes. The energy released by the average hurricane (again considering all hurricanes worldwide) seems to have increased by around 70% in the past 30 years or so, corresponding to about a 15% increase in the maximum wind speed and a 60% increase in storm lifetime.
Quote:
8.) Q: I gather from this last discussion that it would be absurd to attribute the Katrina disaster to global warming?

A: Yes, it would be absurd.
Quote:
9.) Q: OK, maybe we won’t see global warming effects in landfalling hurricanes for another 50 years or so, but shouldn’t we still be worried about it?

A: The answer to this question is largely a matter of one’s geographical and time horizons. For U.S.-centric concerns over the next 30-50 years, by far the most important hurricane problem we face is demographic and political. Consider that Katrina, as horrible as it was, was by no means unprecedented, meteorologically speaking. More intense storms have struck the U.S. coastline long ago. The big problem is the headlong rush to tropical coastlines, coupled with federal and state policies that subsidize the risk incurred by coastal development. Private property insurance is heavily regulated by each state, and political pressure keeps rates low in high-risk regions like tropical coastlines, thus encouraging people to build flimsy structures there. (Those living in low-risk regions pay for this in artificially high premiums.) Federal flood insurance pays for storm surge damage, and like private insurance, its rates do not reflect the true risk. We are subsidizing risky behavior and should not be surprised at the result.

On the other hand, if one’s view is not confined to the U.S. but is global, and/or one’s time horizon is more than 50 years, global warming may indeed begin to have a discernible influence on hurricane damage, especially when coupled with projected increases in sea level.
__________________
DrTeeth is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:33 AM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
God Part III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,335
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Dear George W.
Please reconsider Kyoto.

- Katrina

Biting piece of satire I read in a Danish newspaper yesterday. Please, Americans, make your country sign the Kyoto-treaty. This affects you too.

My sympathies to everyone affected.
__________________
God Part III is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:34 AM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:19 PM
Another environment issue is the regulating of rivers. The mississippi flows much faster than it did 100 years ago. This means that you have less sediments/little islands in front of NO, which would protect the city a little (i.e. breaking a big wave caused by a storm).

The "experts" who are still foolish enough to blame those disasters on nature alone, i.e. with the stubborn argument "storms have always been there", are paid, and whoever pays them directs the outcome of the analysis. Anyone who fails to see that is plain naive.

Some people will never learn, always continue to waste energy, burn gas, drive in big cars, eat at McDonalds producing tons of litter. There is nothing to do about that and they will not change a bit of their lifestyle even if ten hurricanes flood five states. They are so egoistic that they just don´t care if it hits someone else. They think the whole world´s resources are just created to serve them. That´s the mindset, and nobody´s gonna change that, so they are happy when industry pats them on the shoulders and says "no it´s not our fault, continue wasting away".

To put it simple: We have fucked with nature, now nature fucks with us.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:36 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
God Part III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,335
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars
We have fucked with nature, now nature fucks with us.
Agreed.
__________________
God Part III is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:40 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by God Part III
Dear George W.
Please reconsider Kyoto.

- Katrina

Biting piece of satire I read in a Danish newspaper yesterday. Please, Americans, make your country sign the Kyoto-treaty. This affects you too.

My sympathies to everyone affected.
Kyoto would be a nice start, but in reality its just a start. Consumers have to change their lifestyle, industry has to be fined for pumping chemicals into the water, let alone international problems like the Amazonas woods, les farmland, regions drying out, the fucking oil industry that even is too greedy to invest in safe ships so a couple of tankers sink every year, the automotive industry and its developments,..

and people have to start walking again.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:46 AM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
yes, continue to ignore global warming. it's just a theory, like evolution. there's a agenda in place, you must be right.
I think we can step back from the "don't question global warming, Kyoto is the only solution" type of thinking.

This is another sad politicalization of the Katrina distaster.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:47 AM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
God Part III's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Denmark
Posts: 4,335
Local Time: 05:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


Kyoto would be a nice start, but in reality its just a start. Consumers have to change their lifestyle, industry has to be fined for pumping chemicals into the water, let alone international problems like the Amazonas woods, les farmland, regions drying out, the fucking oil industry that even is too greedy to invest in safe ships so a couple of tankers sink every year, the automotive industry and its developments,..

and people have to start walking again.
Agreed again.

But it is a start. And that's what's important.
__________________
God Part III is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 09:54 AM   #25
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 11:19 AM
There was an article in Rolling Stone about a year or so again that outlined all of the potential problems that could happen if we continue to sit idly by. It was horrifying.
__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 10:01 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


I think we can step back from the "don't question global warming, Kyoto is the only solution" type of thinking.

This is another sad politicalization of the Katrina distaster.
Stop to label any positive thinking as politicalization. Give environment a chance.

What makes you think "we" can step back from that "type of thinking" when "we" haven´t sincerily changed our way of dealing with nature?

The devastating triumph of man over nature. We´ve been dreaming about it since we crept out of the caves. We´ve been promoting it since our industry needed masses of natural resources, i.e. industrial revolution.

In the 21st century, old fossils amongst men still think they can control nature. It´s not like that. Nature is a superpower. Stronger than the United States or any country on earth.

It would be intelligent not to ignore this power, but to deal with it. But I´m afraid it´s not gonna happen.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 10:07 AM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
VertigoGal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: I'm never alone (I'm alone all the time)
Posts: 9,860
Local Time: 11:19 AM
"Give environment a chance"

I don't think anyone who rolls their eyes a bit at this thread or the idea the the Kyoto treaty is some great solution automatically doesn't care about the environment.

I think it's kind of silly to suggest that Bush caused global warming which caused Katrina, therefore it's all Bush's fault. At the very most, increasing temperatures may have slightly aggravated the storm, although I've yet to see anything to suggest even that.

Don't get me wrong, we need to smarten up about how we treat the environment, but presenting Katrina as us getting what was coming to us is a bit much.
__________________
VertigoGal is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 10:19 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
hiphop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the jungle
Posts: 7,410
Local Time: 06:19 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
"Give environment a chance"
I think it's kind of silly to suggest that Bush caused global warming which caused Katrina, therefore it's all Bush's fault. At the very most, increasing temperatures may have slightly aggravated the storm, although I've yet to see anything to suggest even that.
I´m not saying it´s Bush´s fault. This developemnt has been underway the last 50 years. This is a global problem in politics, neither limited to Bush/Clinton/Kennedy/Reagan/Republican/Democrat nor to America.

Quote:
Originally posted by VertigoGal
Don't get me wrong, we need to smarten up about how we treat the environment, but presenting Katrina as us getting what was coming to us is a bit much.
Don´t imply that I think anyone deserves a tragedy like that. What I am saying is such tragedies are inevitable if man treats nature like an enemy, not like a partner.

I´ll post an article for further consideration.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...Id=l:307116160

The Baltimore Sun

September 1, 2005 Thursday

The awful price of coastal ruin

Donald F. Boesch


WHILE HURRICANE destruction and personal tragedies have been and will always be a risk of living on the Gulf Coast, our society has let these risks grow over the years.

This partly is because of building and development in inherently risky places - beachfront overdevelopment and sprawling suburbs reclaimed from swamps. But for low-lying Louisiana, vulnerability to hurricanes has increased dramatically because the state's vast coastal wetlands, which slow down storm surges, have been deteriorating and disappearing.

This process of wetland destruction began with the building of flood protection levees almost all the way to the mouth of the Mississippi River during the 19th and 20th centuries. While this protected the expanding population, it stopped the periodic over-bank flooding that provided sediments nourishing the wetlands, allowing them to keep pace with sea level in the rapidly subsiding delta.

Much worse, extensive channels were dredged through the wetlands for navigation and more widely for access to oil and gas wells and pipeline corridors. This death by a thousand cuts hastened the wetland deterioration by many decades. Some of the responses to wetland loss - for example, impounding vulnerable wetlands with small levees in order to "manage" them - only made matters worse.

The mind-boggling rate of coastal wetland loss in Louisiana has been well documented for more than 25 years. From 1956 to 1978, an estimated 50 square miles a year were lost. The rate of loss has now slowed to an estimated 24 square miles a year, in part because of much tighter restrictions on oil field dredging activities, but also because Louisiana is running out of wetlands to lose.

The steps needed to slow down and ultimately reverse the rate of wetland loss have also been well understood by the scientific and engineering community for more than 20 years. The river levees need to be breached in strategic places and control structures built to allow the flow of river water and sediments into the expanding shallow bays.

This could be done in a way that would not jeopardize most communities along the river and adjacent bayous. The wetland building capacity of the river is prodigious - the whole of southeastern Louisiana, south of Lake Pontchartrain, all the way to Lafayette, was built by river sediments during only the last 7,000 years.

In addition, the barrier islands at the edge of the Gulf of Mexico must be maintained to moderate the waves, tidal flows and storm surges that attack the wetlands. Most of these islands are very low-lying and uninhabited. In addition, the large volumes of sediment dredged annually to maintain navigation in the Mississippi River - dwarfing those quantities dredged for the port of Baltimore - should be used for island maintenance and wetland creation rather than just disposed of.

Why hasn't this been done? Largely, it's because of the politics of short-term economic interests.

For example, shipping interests pushed for construction of the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO), a 36-foot-deep, 65-mile-long bypass of the winding route down the river. Dredged straight through the wetlands, MRGO has not only fallen short of its projected use but resulted in an environmental nightmare, allowing saltwater to intrude to New Orleans and causing the demise of many acres of cypress swamp. As it did in Hurricane Betsy in 1965, MRGO undoubtedly provided an easy conduit for the storm surge of Katrina to flood the eastern suburbs, go over the Industrial Canal levee and help fill Lake Pontchartrain.

I know that because my wife and I are natives of New Orleans and I helped rescue people from rooftops in the eastern part of the city after Hurricane Betsy. Now our beloved city is underwater.

On a wider scale, the oil and gas industry actively dismissed assertions that its activities were an important cause of wetland loss and, until fairly recently, even that wetland loss was a serious problem. The federal government, with its multibillion-dollar revenue stream from offshore oil and gas leasing and production in the gulf, long resisted any notion that the shore-based support activities and pipeline corridors played a role in wetland loss and, therefore, that it had a responsibility for restoring the damage.

About 18 months ago, the Bush administration rejected a comprehensive restoration plan developed by the state of Louisiana and the Army Corps of Engineers as too ambitious and too costly. It asked for a scaled-back program, for which funding is still pending before Congress.

It's too bad that it had to take massive human tragedy and a spike in the price at the gasoline pump, but perhaps the nation will now grasp the shameful deterioration of the Louisiana coast. That coast is of enormous importance to the nation in terms of fisheries, wildlife, oil and gas production and transport, shipping and rich cultural heritage, as well as flood protection.

As for our own Chesapeake Bay, there is a solid plan for restoring this ecosystem and its many values to society, but too little political and financial commitment. The lesson of Katrina is that the costs of environmental restoration are dwarfed by the costs of ignoring it.

Donald F. Boesch is president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science in Cambridge.
__________________
hiphop is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 11:03 AM   #29
War Child
 
Spiral_Staircase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA
Posts: 679
Local Time: 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by God Part III
Dear George W.
Please reconsider Kyoto.

- Katrina

Regarding the topic of this thread:

Did anybody read Doc Teeth's post? The term used there was "absurd".

When we blame things like this on global warming and then see that it had nothing to do with this storm, it just adds ammo to the "global warming is a myth" line of reasoning.

By all means, give the environment a chance. Please, let's do much more than that. But let's not resort to making false assumptions about cause and effect. There's enough factual information out there about human impact on the environment and the way that affects human health and safety (see hiphop's post on wetland loss).
__________________
Spiral_Staircase is offline  
Old 09-05-2005, 02:49 PM   #30
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 04:19 PM
They've been tearing up the Louisiana wetlands for all of these years. It doesn't help that they've been wreaking similar havoc in the Florida Panhandle and the Alabama coastal areas. The developers have gone berserk in these places, screwing up beaches and the areas around them. We are all contributing to the massive crimes against our environment. It's a little like the Aswan Dam fiasco in Egypt, the water that irrigated crops for five thousand years stopped rising. They paid a price for that and we are paying a price for screwing up Louisiana.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com