Environmental Issues

[mindido]

Tex,

"Mindido, I went to the west side of N.O. and that is as far as I wanted to go. I dropped my goods off with a red cross group then turned around and headed for the other side of the "big lake". Loaded my family and slept a little then hauled ass for Texas."

That sounds like a smart idea. Although its interesting to see some of the stories of people that actually went in.

 

[t3sqr]

Tex,
Glad to hear the family is back home safe and sound.

Ice,
Yep, that it man, because man is on the planet and we’re warming it up so bad that the Hurricanes are getting pissed off and are going to get worse and more nastyand wipe us all out!. However, I will give you one small concession, the planet is warming up. That is because we are still coming out of the last Ice age cycle. This planet has gone through heating and cooling cycles that last 70,000 years or more. These cycles have happened numerous times and at times with more fluxuation in temperatures than we are seeing now. As far as warmer water near land… Have you never gone swimming in a lake? The water is always warmer around the edge where it is more shallow. Maybe…just maybe, the SUN warms the water faster in shallow water than in deep water. Get a real grip on the WHOLE picture. Your statements on global warming is like one of those guys the watch sports highlights on the news and then says “I watched the game last night”.

 

[cableguy]

ice, i believe that a little common sense can explain your warm waters... iam of the belief that ANY water close to land will be warmer than water not close to land... two factors come to mind... first, the sun can warm land, which will hold that warmth for some time.. contact between this land and the water it borders will transfer some of that heat... second, the sun can penetrate shallow waters to the earth, again, warming that earth and the water above it... end result: warmer water close to land...

hurricane katrina was a freak storm... it happened to hit a bad place, and the results were horrible... the hurricane that hit galveston and killed thousands was also a freak storm... unless you can tie that one to global warming, kindly shop your conspiracies elsewhere... oh, and the pilgrims reported a hurricane in the 1600s... global warming there too???

thank you tex, for your kindness and generosity, and for adding a level head to this thread once again...

 

[Iceberg]

Cable, Texan, and t3sqr,

http://grist.org/comments/soapbox/2005/09/07/korty/index.html

http://www.pewclimate.org/specialreports/katrina.cfm

From the latter article:

What science does offer on this question is a general understanding of the physics of tropical storms that can inform reasonable assessment. Because hurricanes draw strength from heat in ocean surface waters, warming the water should generate more powerful hurricanes, on average. Indeed, sea surface temperature records show that the oceans are more than 1 degree F warmer on average today compared to a century ago. On short time scales (days to months), temperatures fluctuate above and below the long-term average, and the water can be warmer or cooler than the average on any given day. But the higher the average, the more likely the water will be warm enough to produce a strong storm on any given day during the hurricane season. Case in point: while Katrina was strengthening from a tropical storm to a category 5 hurricane, as it passed between the Florida Keys and the Gulf Coast, the surface waters in the Gulf of Mexico were unusually warm – about 2 degrees F warmer than normal for this time of year. From this “first-principles” perspective, then, it is no surprise that Katrina became a very powerful storm. While there is no method to determine whether global warming played a role, it is reasonable to say it increased the probability that the Gulf surface water would be unusually warm on any given day, as it was on August 29 when Katrina’s intensity peaked. {boldface added}

Obviously, cable, Texan, and t3sqr, water nearer land and in a shallower basin (with a sandy sea floor) will be warmer than water with deeper depth under the same solar exposure scenario. However, as I have boldfaced in the text above, the water in the Gulf of Mexico is "about 2 degrees F warmer than normal for this time of year."

Now, due to the fact that the oceans are over a degree F warmer than they were a century ago, there is overwhelming evidence that the warming of the Gulf of Mexico waters was caused by human-induced climate change.

Therefore, a connection between the intensification of Hurricane Katrina and climate change cannot be ruled out. Of course, the intensification cannot solely be blamed on global warming. However, there is a significant statistical chance that this has been exacerbated by global warming.

For more on this, please read:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=181

 

[Iceberg]

"Retreating glaciers, melting permafrost threaten Arctic lifestyle":

http://us.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/09/12/greenland.arctic.thaw.ap/index.html

 

[Iceberg]

"World's Top Firms Fail to Tackle Climate Change Challenge":

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0915-04.htm

 

[Iceberg]

"Global warming 'past the point of no return'":

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece

"Poll: 8 in 10 Want Drivers to Drop SUVs":

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0916-02.htm

 

[Iceberg]

Three more articles on climate change or environmental issues:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0922-06.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0922-01.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0921-07.htm

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

What's the explanation for Mars ice caps melting? To make it easy, just fill in the blank. "Bush is creating the melting of the ice caps on Mars becase__________." http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm

 

[Iceberg]

Two more articles:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0923-21.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0922-19.htm

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Since probably no one reads all the propaganda links you provide, i figure i might stir some intrest. This link is really funny because its about the Sierra club who dare mention anything about a fucking hurricane. If you scour long enough you'll see that it was this liberal club that used money and courts to prevent the fixing of the levees in NO, in the name of invironmental threat! bahahaha Why would you never mention the fact that increased solar activity coincides with the time frame of all this bullshit? Cause somebody's favorite scientific circle wouldn't get funds? Nah we know the sun is constant. http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0922-19.htm

 

[Iceberg]

Duke, over the last century or two, solar activity has not increased. Sure, there are sunspot cycles, but they do not cause great fluctuations in hurricane formation. There HAS NOT been an overall increase in solar activity over the last 30 years, but there HAS been an increase in the frequency and severity of such storms over that time frame. (Check out Kerry Emanuel and Peter Webster's studies on this.)

As for this:

This link is really funny because its about the Sierra club who dare mention anything about a fucking hurricane. If you scour long enough you'll see that it was this liberal club that used money and courts to prevent the fixing of the levees in NO, in the name of invironmental threat!

Absolute lies (spewed out by FOX News, NewsMax, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, etc.)! This has been drawn up by the whacko Right (who have failed the region, and the country for that matter, miserably in leadership and rescue/recovery efforts) to attack the Left, who deserve ZERO blame for this.

The Republicans could have put this in some of their Pork-Barrel budgets, but no! They had to fund roads into the hearts of ancient forests to appease the forestry industry and to the detriment of the environment, faith-based initiatives that have very little benefit, and cut taxes to the wealthiest couple percent (tax money that could have been used to build a fucking levee!).

The Republicans (i.e. Bush, et al. and not people like John McCain) have failed to protect Americans once again. Four years after 9-11 and with a revamped Homeland Security department and they couldn't prevent thousands of deaths from a hurricane, the path of which was predicted days in advance! They had warning and yet let people die. They are a black mark on the United States of America!

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Good grief Ice. This isn't something that can't be proven!!!!!! This isn't something that can't be looked into.

"A suit filed by environmental groups at the U.S. District Court in New Orleans claimed the Corps had not looked at “the impact on bottomland hardwood wetlands.” The lawsuit stated, “Bottomland hardwood forests must be protected and restored if the Louisiana black bear is to survive as a species, and if we are to ensure continued support for source population of all birds breeding in the lower Mississippi River valley.” In addition to the Sierra Club, other parties to the suit were the group American Rivers, the Mississippi River Basin Alliance, and the Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi Wildlife Federations."

Now wouldn't it be a low down sorry thing to be Al Gore standing in front of the Devils Club preaching about how the NO mess is Bush's fault, "knowing" it's the precious club's fault the levees burst in the 1st place? Seriously? No pride involved, seriously? Its also a fact that 16 million dollars for levee inhancement was in your liberal hands. Now no money and no receipts! Just heads in the sand.

Maybe talk about the sun in a later post.

 

[mindido]

Duke,

Please cite the above statement, there is no way to check its validity.

As far as the rest of your statement, its total BS. Virtually all of the levees in the US were built in the 50's and 60's, only at the dawn of the environmental movement. So to say that its the Sierra Clubs fault that the levees burst is totally absurd. The Sierra Club has been involved in attempting to get the Corps of Engineers and states to recognize the idiocy of some of their plans which have, over the years, proved extremely detrimental (N.O., building on barrier islands and the 1980's floods are only a few examples). In fact, the Corps now, finally, is recognizing the value of barrier islands and wetlands and how they can mitigate the effects of hurricanes.

What Bush is being blamed for is the response to Katrina in the first four days. THAT was reprehensible! There is no getting around it. But what we are seeing is that the republicans recognize that and are trying everything they can to shift the blame and try to fool any dunderhead that they can.

As far as the real reasons for the levees bursting? There are too many to recount here but a few would include:

1. Inattention by the feds (as levees are the sole domain of the Corps of Engineers). The N.O. levees were built in the 60's to withstand a Cat 3 (supposedly) but encountered a Cat 4. So it should be a surprise to no one that they failed (and it had been predicted many times that they would).

2. Inattention by the feds (again). All of the administrations since Nixon have known about this problem and failed to do much about it. The cost of building a levee that might (and I stress might) withstand a Cat 5 would be exorbitant.

3. Corruption. Louisiana and N.O. have reputations as not having the cleanest governments. They are about as corrupt as New York, New Jersey and Illinois. And it hasn't mattered if they're Dem. or Rep. And at the fed level, do you really think Mike Brown got his job because of his resume? Or because of who he knew? Theres no doubt of that any longer.

So several things are very clear. The levee problem in N.O. has been known about for decades (at least). Cripes, I studied it when I was in college in Wisconsin back in the mid 80's. All of the administrations since the 70's have paid lip service to the problem. And corruption at both the State and Fed level have contributed considerably. So to blame the Sierra Club is idiotic.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

min we know all this bro, its shoveled down our throats everyday. If environmentalists pulled this exact same shit in 1976, why is it hard to believe it can't happen in 1996? If it is so idiotic to think that these rich folks don't care about people as much as birds....for the sake of income....non-profit my ass, then why is the Justice Department looking into it? Are the people of the flood lying when they tell about the signs posted through 3 states denouncing levee projects because of frogs, bears, and the endangered fart apes? I'd almost say lets wait it out to see the outcome, but i know better than that.

 

[Iceberg]

For one thing, Duke, environmentalists' positions are not respected or honoured by the US Government. Very little of what they say or report is ever taken into consideration.

What is absurd is that earth-raping corporations (the energy sector, etc.) have such access to the government (or are the government, as is the case with the current administration) while environmentalists, people who are trying to protect this planet's future inhabitability, are swept aside.

A sea-change in government in the United States must occur if such disasters are to be mitigated in the future.

ETA: "Coming To The Arctic Near You: The Longer, Hotter Summer":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050923074610.htm

 

[mindido]

Duke,

Where did you get the idea environmentalists are rich? I know quite a few of them (myself included) that are anything but rich. The common ideas amongst environmentalists is a respect for the places we live and a concern for coming generations. Wheras the people you have chosen are undeniably rich and only care for their bottom line.

As far as the Justice Dept. charge, where is the citation? Awfully hard to check that out without it. To me this sounds exactly like either Karl Rove or Tom Dalays work, thus not to be trusted.

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

Not the people, the club. It's politics whether you see it that way or not. Close to a million members/donars sending in around 60 mil every year, with speakers like Hillary and Gore. Come on now, they get the opportunity to speak on subjects for which the club was founded, and instead use it to voice personal gain speeches having nothing to do with the right purposes. Its very political with or without your denial. The shit is like Jerry's kids, you hear the bragging of the money pouring in, but you never see the kids walk. Votes. Money. Power. Anyway the average person had understanding with the environmentalists until the wacko's came along. I won't say these crazies were the result of funds since i don't know, and don't believe, but they shuned the people never the less. I keep telling yall that your front runners are hurting you, but you just won't listen.

 

[mindido]

Duke,

I have worked with the local Sierra Club on several occasions over the years (usually on land acquisition issues) and have gotten to know quite a few of their members. They are very dedicated people for whom money is not of primary concern. All of them that I have worked with I would trust, and trust far more than any oil company or OPEC executive.

"instead use it to voice personal gain speeches having nothing to do with the right purposes."

Show me one politician, from either side, that doesn't do that. Just one!

"you hear the bragging of the money pouring in, but you never see the kids walk."

I only know abit about the local Sierra Club but I do know that they do a good job here. In association with other groups, their primary focus here is to acquire lands of environmental significance. And virtually all of their funds go either for that or education. From what I've heard, the national group is much the same.

You know, there are crazies in virtually all groups, but the Sierra Club is not one of them.

 

[Iceberg]

"Air Pollution Linked To Heart Attack":

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/09/050926074103.htm

This article proves that excess consumption of fossil fuels is exceedingly dangerous to human health.