Direct Hit by Ivan Could Sink New Orleans

Post by **Gandalf** » 2004-09-15 07:31am

Zac Naloen wrote:Anyone else thinking that theres gonna be a movie about this?

Probably just a shitty telemovie. At least 10 years before they even think about cinema stuff.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-15 11:01am

If this does occur, then the WTC incident would pale in comparison and there'd be no nasty terrorists to bomb or blame.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-09-15 01:50pm

Gandalf wrote:Wow, has anything ever happened on this scale before?

And Crackpot, that article is rather unnerving...

The last time a major American city was totally destroyed was San Francisco in 1906. Major earthquake followed by a firestorm. And the death toll there was only in the low thousands*, because most of the population could get away before the fire reached them. They weren't trapped like the people of New Orleans would be by high winds and floodwaters on all sides.

*The official estimates were only around 500, if I recall correctly, but a lot of the bodies probably burned to ash and weren't counted.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-15 02:12pm

I wonder why nobody is talking about the fact that the 1 degree increase in the temperature of the Atlantic over the last few decades is pretty much universally agreed among weather experts to be responsible for the increase in hurricane intensity.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-09-15 02:18pm

Darth Wong wrote:I wonder why nobody is talking about the fact that the 1 degree increase in the temperature of the Atlantic over the last few decades is pretty much universally agreed among weather experts to be responsible for the increase in hurricane intensity.

Because the American Public enjoys sticking its head in the sand. Unfortunately, now they're finding out what happens when the tide rises and floods you.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-09-15 02:21pm

Darth Wong wrote:I wonder why nobody is talking about the fact that the 1 degree increase in the temperature of the Atlantic over the last few decades is pretty much universally agreed among weather experts to be responsible for the increase in hurricane intensity.

i caught a show on the Discovery channel a while back that touched on that. What it basicly stated (and this is from memory, so feel free to confirm it on your own) is that every few thousand years or so the Atlantic goes through drastic changes especially with regards to the gulf stream. This causes drastic temperature changes over time. The program went on to theorize that we are at the beginning of such a cycle now. I wish i remembered more. When i get home today i'll search around some.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-15 02:25pm

I think that a lot of people want to cling to the comfortable notion that this is just a "blip" rather than something they're going to have to live with.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-15 02:32pm

Oh, it gets bigger than that.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-09-15 02:45pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Oh, it gets bigger than that.

want to know what irks me? People using 100 years of climatalogical data to back the claim that we are headed for massive global warming. 4 billion years but only 100 years of accurate data. To top it off it is the last consecutive 100 years. Yeah, thats a sample set that is truly representative of a given population.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-15 02:50pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Oh, it gets bigger than that.
want to know what irks me? People using 100 years of climatalogical data to back the claim that we are headed for massive global warming. 4 billion years but only 100 years of accurate data. To top it off it is the last consecutive 100 years. Yeah, thats a sample set that is truly representative of a given population.

It doesn't have to be, Crackpot. You are distorting his claim by pretending that the use of 100 years of climatological data to project trends into the next century is tantamount to generalizing about 4 billion years of terrestrial climate based on 100. That's nonsense; all they're doing is projecting trends into the next century, since that is the timeframe which concerns us.

What the fuck difference does it make why or how global warming is caused, if we can determine that it's a harmful trend? Even if it's completely natural, we still have to ask ourselves the question: is it good or bad, and if it's bad, can we do anything about it?

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-09-15 02:58pm

Darth Wong wrote:
It doesn't have to be, Crackpot. You are distorting his claim by pretending that the use of 100 years of climatological data to project trends into the next century is tantamount to generalizing about 4 billion years of terrestrial climate based on 100. That's nonsense; all they're doing is projecting trends into the next century, since that is the timeframe which concerns us.

What the fuck difference does it make why or how global warming is caused, if we can determine that it's a harmful trend? Even if it's completely natural, we still have to ask ourselves the question: is it good or bad, and if it's bad, can we do anything about it?

Mike, what if the current trend is part of a larger process that we cannot see because of our limited sampling data? And If it is completely natural, should we do anything? It is one thing to affect the environment passively... as a side effect of modern society. It is totally another to delibrately change the natural climate of an entire planet to suit us. That would come back to bite us for sure.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-15 03:04pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:Mike, what if the current trend is part of a larger process that we cannot see because of our limited sampling data?

Who gives a fuck? The point is whether it's harming human society, and if it is, then are we technologically capable of doing anything about it?

And If it is completely natural, should we do anything? It is one thing to affect the environment passively... as a side effect of modern society. It is totally another to delibrately change the natural climate of an entire planet to suit us. That would come back to bite us for sure.

Oh great, you're trotting out the naturalistic fallacy.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-09-15 03:05pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Mike, what if the current trend is part of a larger process that we cannot see because of our limited sampling data? And If it is completely natural, should we do anything? It is one thing to affect the environment passively... as a side effect of modern society. It is totally another to delibrately change the natural climate of an entire planet to suit us. That would come back to bite us for sure.

Limited sampling data? There are ice cores being used that date back several ice ages ago, that's a lot of centuries in anybody's book. There are trends that emerge from even the data we have firsthand which causes concern.

The fact is, these changes are happening. It doesn't matter whether it's manmade or natural now; it's unstoppable. But we can react to this since such changes, if as dramatic as the weather has been this past decade alone, could mean a whole new way of life for most of humanity.

For one thing, nuclear power should certainly make a come back. I was contemplating typing an article from the paper today on how people shun it and how we're all hoping for renewable energy that simply doesn't deliver. If we start having energy crises with the winters getting as bad as they are now then that's lives at risk that could otherwise be saved.

We may not be able to stop hurricanes or tsunamis and massive flooding, but the least we can do is act and try and limit their damage.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-15 04:15pm

http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=42040

Station 42040 - MOBILE SOUTH 64 nm South of Dauphin Island, AL

Conditions at 42040 as of
(1:50 pm CDT)
1850 GMT on 09/15/2004:

Wave Height (WVHT): 42.0 ft

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-15 04:16pm

Holy fucking shit!

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-09-15 04:29pm

At least in Florida, most of the papers have been warning that we are now on an "active-hurricane" phase likely to last for some time.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-09-15 04:39pm

phongn wrote:At least in Florida, most of the papers have been warning that we are now on an "active-hurricane" phase likely to last for some time.

Jeanne is already taking aim at florida and should be a hurricane by morning.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-09-15 04:49pm

You know, if Kerry had a tiny shred of the Bush Administration's instinct for exploiting tragedy to further its agenda, they would be blasting Bush right now for his refusal to consider global warming a priority issue, and citing these hurricanes.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-09-15 04:53pm

This is terrible. Right now, I'm promising to volunteer for any relief efforts from Pittsburgh to New Orleans if things hit the fan.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-09-15 05:16pm

Good news: it seems now that the eye will miss New Orleans by several hundred miles.

Bad news: it's going straight up Mobile Bay instead.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-09-15 06:00pm

Darth Wong wrote:You know, if Kerry had a tiny shred of the Bush Administration's instinct for exploiting tragedy to further its agenda, they would be blasting Bush right now for his refusal to consider global warming a priority issue, and citing these hurricanes.

Yeah, and as soon as he does that Kerry gets blasted for trying to make political hay out of a drowning city the same way the democrats tried to use a dead senator as a rallying cry in 2002 and had it blow up in their faces. The second he does that, he loses the entire South.

Its what I'd expect him to do.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-09-15 06:06pm

There's no way that pointing out that Bush is wrong on global warming by citing the terrible hurricane season ravaging the Southeast and that scientists agree its caused by incremental temperature differences is comparable to waxing poetic over Wellstone's death, except ahem, in the damaged mind of Republican ideologues. And Wellstone's death "blew up" in Kerry's face so bad he won the popular vote and lost the Florida election by a few hundred. Some massive loss there.

And naturally you miss the larger point; that Bush is an asshole for doing something FAR WORSE than what Wong suggests, by openly, brazingly, and tastelessly milking September 11th and New York City for every drop its worth. That is[/i] comparable to the Wellstone funeral, except it was a national tragedy and thousands died, making it far worse and not comparable in scale[/i], anyway.

But hey, don't allow me to interrupt your "YAY KERRY WILL SUCK IT" hard-on.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-09-15 06:08pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:But hey, don't allow me to interrupt your "YAY KERRY WILL SUCK IT" hard-on.

I appreciate it.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-09-15 06:10pm

CaptainChewbacca wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:But hey, don't allow me to interrupt your "YAY KERRY WILL SUCK IT" hard-on.
I appreciate it.

Par on-course for your ilk; waltz away from their ridiculous claims as if it is as solid as the Great Pyramid.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-09-15 06:13pm

Hey, I'm just saying it would be political suicide for either candidate to politicise a disaster while it was unfolding. Maybe in a few weeks, but not right now.