Good Luck New Orleans

quote:

Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on the contrary mechanisms involved which rule out the effects of global warming where hurricanes are concerned?

Nime, you mentioned Kyoto which has nothing to do with 'global warming' now, it merely aims to restrain the rate of rise in carbon emissions in the future to the level it was at some time ago and is predicted to have no significant effect on climate change. On a less semantic level serious storms in the Gulf of Mexico are not rare things, on the basis that a city should last more than a lifetime. I think the storm in 1926 was more devastating than this one has been.

Paul

There's some really unpleasant mean spiritedness being displayed on this thread. Not to mention stupidity. How does the destruction of the WTC which had a minor effect on a small area of Manhattan compare to devastation of an area the size of the UK?

How would you evacuate 100000 people? 2000 bus trips to a place of safety in 48 hours. You need at least 250 buses, 500 bus drivers, and you need them now. You have to find somewhere to take them you have to arrange orderly queuing, you have to persuade the reluctant. And this is just the 10% of the population who've been unable to take care of themselves.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us on the contrary mechanisms involved which rule out the effects of global warming where hurricanes are concerned? I'm sure you'll have a captive audience with this subject being so current.

There doesn't seem to be much evidence that climate change is having any impact on hurricane formations.

Hurricanes and climate change

However, that wont stop 'the public' from linking this disaster to climate change. It does give an inking of what the world may look like if we get major sea level rises though.



Regards

Stephen

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

How would you evacuate 100000 people?

Paul

The problem is that most of those left behind are the poorer elements of society who couldn't evacuate as they had no means of transport and nowhere to go. It's a wake up call to the US as to how it treats its poor and how the Bush administration has made life worse for those on low/no incomes.

If anyone had cared, the authorities would have been on hand to help those left behind to evacuate before the storm hit thus avoiding all this disaster.

Because of the 'me, me' society that exists in the US, no-one did care.

And it's a stark reminder of the way we humans always go for short term gain over future planning.

Regards

Stephen

I don't see what you're actually proposing the 'authorities' could have done significantly better regarding evacuation. And the assumption that nobody 'cared' is pretty crass and unsupported.

I found http://gov.louisiana.gov/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf quite an interesting insight into the mechanics of government.

Paul

I wonder why the City Manager did not go to the voters and ask them to vote for the adoption of a bill that would allow the City to collect via taxation additional funding to cover any budget shortfall connected with the strengthening of the levies?

Is this a stark reminder of the way we humans always go for short term gain over future planning?

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
I don't see what you're actually proposing the 'authorities' could have done significantly better regarding evacuation.

How about this?

'We have an inpending natural disaster that is predicted to devistate New Orleans - we are so confident it will be a major disaster that we are recommending evacuation. We also realise that some of the residents will find evacuation a problem, so we are laying on transport and accommodation in a safe area for them before.'

I think the prople trapped in NO probably think the authorities could have done better.

Especially from a country that can wage a war on the other side of the world.

Stephen

Surely that is basically what happened. That's why the dome and convention centre are full of people. Transport and accommodation for 100000 is very much a non-trivial exercise. I see that the Houston 'Astro Dome' can accommodate a mere 25000 but it's 350 miles away, or at least 7 hours by bus.

How long would it take to evacuate East Anglia to the higher ground of the Midlands? That would be a small problem on this scale where the affected area is the size of the whole UK.

I think the pre-hurricane evacuation was pretty impressive. 90% of the New Orleans population actually left. I suspect the post hurricane debacle is more to do with demarcation than discrimination. And that we don't have any concept of the size of the problem.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by Nime:
I was listening to the head climatologist at the Danish Meterological Office speaking on the radio. While he made no direct connection in answer to the direct question he intimated that increased energy in the system from global warming can't be ruled out.

It seemed a quite reasonable supposition to an ignorant soul like me.

For info:-

New Scientist

New Scientist

New Scientist

cheers, Martin

Martin

Compare the claims in those articles with what has happened over the last 150 years. 1941-1950 was by far the worst decade.

Jim

Jim,

apparently, there were no category 5 events before the 1940's, but three since then.

According to one of my links:-

quote:

According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Atlantic spawned an average of 8.6 tropical storms, 5 hurricanes and 1.5 major hurricanes each year between 1970 and 1994. But from 1995 to 2004, the averages zoomed to 13.6, 7.8 and 3.8 respectively. And last year a record four hurricanes hit Florida. But the natural decadal swings in the number of storms and hurricanes are so large that climate change cannot be blamed for the increases, according to Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado (Science, vol 308, p 1753).

However, hurricane intensity and rainfall have been increasing consistently. For instance, the total precipitation from hurricanes hitting the US rose by about 7 per cent over the course of the 20th century. This is because the sea-surface temperature and atmospheric moisture content have been increasing as the world warms, and both provide the energy to fuel hurricanes, writes Trenberth.

cheers, Martin

quote:

No one cares about disasters until they happen. That is a political fact of life,

It looks like computer models predicted almost exactly what would happen but the findings and finance seem to have been burried under several layers of bureaucracy as attention was focused upon DHS projects and budgets.

Wired: They Knew What to Expect

Martin

quote:

Posted Fri 02 September 2005 18:41
Jim,

apparently, there were no category 5 events before the 1940's, but three since then.

That is not true. From the same site
"Only 3 Category Five Hurricanes have made landfall in the United States since records began: The Labor Day Hurricane of 1935, Hurricane Camille (1969), and Hurricane Andrew in August, 1992." "The 1935 Labor Day Hurricane struck the Florida Keys with a minimum pressure of 892 mb--the lowest pressure ever observed in the United States. "

With regard to intensity, it would appear otherwise. See here
Jim

My kid brother turned out a lot better than I expected.

See John M. Barry, Rising Tide (1997) for a look at river engineering on the Mississippi and the flood of 1927, especially in Greenville, MS and New Orleans.

The levee system as we know it was a result of a political battle that was fought out in the decades after the Civil War. The compromse that ended it combined 2 opposing aspects of the 2 competing plans...not too far from the worst possible resolution. The Mississippi looks like a plaything of the Army Corps of Engineers - I know they don't want disasters, but their arrogance is clearly shown to be hubris when the winds blow and the barometric pressure falls.

In 1927, African-American residents of Greenville were in essence enslaved to clean up the mess when the river broke through the levee. Now the needs of the poor (African-American, white, creole Hispanic - you name it) are simply objects of hypocritical crocodile tears. Early reporting on the flooding was that the Quarter was OK, so there was nothing to worry about. Huh????

The NO elite feared flooding and destruction in 1927. After promising to reimburse rural residents for their losses, they flooded the parish below NO. Then they paid off 1.5 cents on a dollar of losses.

In 2005, the poor did not buy flood insurance, but the rich sure did. This is a federal program, and the premiums are far less than a commercial company would charge, though more than the average low income resident of NO could afford - another program that transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthy who built houses, condos, and (IIRC) businesses - gambling and gambling support businesses - along the obviously fragile and vulnerable Gulf coast. "Sure," they say, "we may lose everything - but the taxpayers will bail us out!"

And our president, having thrown away resources in tax cuts for the very wealthiest US citizens and in a war of revenge against a peanut, says it will take a long, long time to repair the damage.

Historically, NO and Lousiana politics have been blots on the record of humankind. Remember - LA is the state in which the choice for governor not too long ago pitted a would-be Hitler against an obvious crook. They've given their waterways to polluters...who then rail against taxation and leave people to die in their wake.

Congress, under the leadership of Trent Lott, Bill Frist, and Gingrich/Livingston/Hastert/DeLay has cut funds for flood control in most years since 1995 (when they gained control of Congress).

Our leaders say that they've done all they could - they built the levees to fail once in a hundred years - but they never put aside enough resources to relieve those caught in the storm.

Yes, it took cooperation between Democrats and Republicans to bring us to this sorry state (and it would be so easy to make it much worse, given the incompetence of this administration). but the Republicans consistently fight spending and trumpet their anti-taxation, 'starve the beast' policies. They have been in the forefront of weakening the only force we have that can deal with inter-state issues (and the Mississippi drains a vast number of states), and they bear the majority of the blame. And their Chosen One, the sainted George W. Bush, simply says, well, it'll take a long, long time to repair the damage....

By the way, when doing research for his Rising Tide, 10+ years ago, Army CoE people acknowledged that a decent 'cane could destroy the city...but Congress thought tax cuts were more important.

Phil Barry

Why is flood defence in Louisiana the responsibility of the US Congress? It's a matter for the State. The reaction to the disaster is a Federal issue, and it's not looking good so far, a lot better than Indonesia or Thailand, but still not good, but the primary responsibility for the flood defences is surely a State issue.

FWIW I think it doesn't matter. This was going to happen sooner or later regardless. Whether now or in 50 years. What's really shocking is the response of the affected population. I'm not inclined to want to help.

Paul

Phil,

I've read that. I'd add John McPhee's Control of Nature to the reading list.

I've been to Old River Control... it's humbling.

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Why is flood defence in Louisiana the responsibility of the US Congress? It's a matter for the State. The reaction to the disaster is a Federal issue, and it's not looking good so far, a lot better than Indonesia or Thailand, but still not good, but the primary responsibility for the flood defences is surely a State issue.

FWIW I think it doesn't matter. This was going to happen sooner or later regardless. Whether now or in 50 years. What's really shocking is the response of the affected population. I'm not inclined to want to help.

Paul

I'm sorry, but I see no point in the drawing legal or constitutional distinctions until the crisis has long passed and the suffering has been adressed.

The US is covered in air force bases and military installations and pays a staggering amount of money to keep it all going.

So why is the air over New Orleans not black with helicopters and hercules aircraft picking up people and dropping supplies?

Deane,

It's simple really...they are almost all tied up in Iraq.

Bush has really been caught with his pants down on this one.

The word which comes to mind is a cluster
f~~k,

What is going on when the military can't get control over their own country!!!


Justyn

quote:

I'm sorry, but I see no point in the drawing legal or constitutional distinctions until the crisis has long passed and the suffering has been adressed.

So you agree with me? Or not? Tricky since Phil is discussing the failure to ameliorate the inevitable and you seem to be criticising me for addressing that until the consequences have been dealt with.

Paul

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Why is flood defence in Louisiana the responsibility of the US Congress? It's a matter for the State. The reaction to the disaster is a Federal issue, and it's not looking good so far, a lot better than Indonesia or Thailand, but still not good, but the primary responsibility for the flood defences is surely a State issue.

FWIW I think it doesn't matter. This was going to happen sooner or later regardless. Whether now or in 50 years. What's really shocking is the response of the affected population. I'm not inclined to want to help.

Paul

Dear Paul,

The Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress control over America's navigable waterways, which include those surrounding New Orleans: the Mississippi River, Lake Ponchartrain and the American waters of the Gulf of Mexico. This is why the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining the system of levees that protect N.O., rather than the State of Louisiana or the City of New Orleans.

The Republican leadership in Congress has consistently refused to strengthen the levee system in New Orleans, beginning in 1995, when the GOP took control of Congress. This past year, for the first time in many decades, the Republicans actually cut the budget for maintaining the levees, which, like all earthen structures, need to be repaired regularly.

Best,
Joe

May I ask our American friends whether the US TV news channels are reporting the disaster in the same highly critical tones as the European News services are? Are they showing suffering and dying people from New Orleans and interviewing those actually affected? Have the mayor of New Orleans raging comments about central government and state governors been widely broadcast in the US?

Hi Nime,

Yes. For the first time in recent memory, the mainstream media outlets have been "calling it like it is" and taking the Bush administration to task for its unbelievably poor response. The images of sick, dying and dead people have been on American TV screens for some time now, as have the mayor's comments.

It was reported all afternoon that Bush and Mayor Nagin would appear together in a press conference this evening; after the Mayor's comments, though, Bush announced that he had met with the Mayor, but did not appear on camera with him.

--Joe

Nime:

The TV "news" channels are doing their usual thing: Looking for ratings.

For once, the newspapers (including mine) are doing their damn job. The response is universally critical, and in much sharper terms than in the British press. And there's much much worse on the way.

However, the wagons will be circled and scapegoats/distractions will be found. I see that someone has already said here that we shouldn't help the suffering because of the actions of a few deranged, heavily armed thugs. Pathetic.

And if you wonder what that slurping sound is, it's "developers" already salivating at the prospect of rebuilding New Orleans, probably without all those annoying poor black folk.

Davie

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

I'm sorry, but I see no point in the drawing legal or constitutional distinctions until the crisis has long passed and the suffering has been adressed.

So you agree with me? Or not? Tricky since Phil is discussing the failure to ameliorate the inevitable and you seem to be criticising me for addressing that until the consequences have been dealt with.

Paul

Fair point. I retract and please accept my apologies for the criticism implicit in my post.