New Orleans is one of a dozen cities at risk from global warming, environmental group says

Jul 26, 2011 Full story: The Times-Picayune

Published: Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 7:50 PM Updated: Tuesday, July 26, 2011, 8:46 PM New Orleans is one of a dozen U.S. cities most at risk from the effects of global warming, a threat that city officials here have recognized and are responding to in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina , concludes a new report released today by the Natural Resources ...

Full Story

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#1 Jul 27, 2011
New Orleans has been at risk since it was first settled.
What a stupid place to build a town, where drainage systems and levees are required to keep it from flooding.
The same could be said for:
"Other cities on the list include New York; Miami; Norfolk, Va.; St. Louis, Mo.; Los Angeles and Seattle"
Add Bangkok and a much of Holland to that list, plus many other towns and cities around the world.
Humans are very strange creatures.
LessHypeMoreFact

Orangeville, Canada

#2 Jul 27, 2011
Earthling-1 wrote:
New Orleans has been at risk since it was first settled.
Total crap. Two things have created a risk to New Orleans. One is ground settling due to extracting water from the soil. This has lowered the ground in many areas that were previously relatively uncompacted soils deposited by the Mississippi. And, because there is no more desposited soil from flooding, the ground continues to sink.

The other is the 'channelizing' of the Mississippi for shipping and flood control. The river still deposits mud but it does it on the bottom and so the river level keeps rising above the plains around it. It is now several meters ABOVE it's 'natural' level.

Dirtling once again proves that he talks a lot but knows nothing.

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#3 Jul 28, 2011
Why Is New Orleans Sinking?
-
The study area was sinking an average of 16.9 millimeters per year between 1969 and '71 and 7.1 millimeters per year between 1971 and '77, Dokka reports in the April issue of Geology. Using his deep benchmark, Dokka calculated that tectonic activity was responsible for 73% and 50% of the subsidence in those two periods; the rest was likely due to sediments compressing and recently deposited soils draining. This indicates "that there's a big chunk of subsidence occurring in a place that cannot be explained by other activities," says Dokka. Merely stopping water extraction and oil drilling off the coast might not help protect New Orleans from being inundated by future hurricanes, he says.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2006/03...

“Happy, warm and comfortable”

Since: Oct 10

Mountain hideaway, SE Spain

#4 Jul 28, 2011
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
Dirtling once again proves that he talks a lot but knows nothing.
Says Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, the fat guy who posts this type of garbage:
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
CO2 is not vital for life.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
At no point will the CO2 be involved in LIVING processes.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
CO2 is not used by living cells. And plants can live forever without it (or photosynthesis) if you supply them with what IS vital, such as glucose and oxygen.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
On the contrary. I have never claimed that animal life on planet earth could not survive without CO2. In fact, I claim that this is TOTALLY BOGUS. Animal life can live quite well with NO CO2.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
While photosynthesis is required to RECYLCE CO2, nowhere is there evidence of CO2 itself being vital to ANY life.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
With calving you don't get more than a small difference in the endpoint. You don't 'calve' a chunk of ice 2.7 square miles in extent.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
I objected to calving as a description of the breakup of several square miles of glacier. It is still the wrong term. That is truth, not lie.
LessFactMoreHype wrote:
30% chance of being rained on for a person anywhere in the area =
- assume an even distribution of 100 people through the area.
- by the definition, 30 of them will be rained on.
- ergo, it is equivalent to saying that 30% of the AREA will get rain.
Duuuuuhhhhh

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Answers.com Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
List of Days of our Lives storylines: Informati... (Feb '08) Aug '14 amw 40
New Drug May Help with Premature Ejaculation (May '11) Jun '14 kinghockey 54
hi (Oct '12) Oct '12 dummy 1
flying car (May '12) May '12 Garrett 1
In the Health Care Fight, a Political Focus on ... (Jan '11) Mar '11 Oregon Is Disgusting 66
Gay Marriage Policy Change: Questions And Answers (Feb '11) Feb '11 pythias07 1
Tony Alamo - Imposter Con From Day One (Aug '09) Oct '10 Worm_Can_Opener 229

Answers.com People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE