2007-10-16 09:52:26 · 16 answers · asked by Scooter 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
An excellent question. And how dare we question the minds of those who want to rebuild "Chocolate City" exactly the way it was before as if Hurricane Katrina never happened.
I would point out, however, that melting ice caps will not cause the sealevels to rise. Sealevels will remain the same. Fill a glass of water half-full. Now put in four to six ice cubes. Take a magic marker and mark the water level. Leave the glass out for three hours and let the ice melt. Now check the water level again. The water level has not changed. Why? Because ice is water and by letting it melt, you have not done anything to the volume of water in the glass.
What could cause sealevels to rise is a.) more ice caps formed (fill a glass of water halfway and then put four ice cubes in the glass-voila, the water level rises!!!!), or b.) more land mass like islands (instead of ice put marbles or rocks in the glass-the water level RISES!!!), etc.
Boil two cups of water in a pot on the stove for 30 minutes. Then turn off the heat and pour the water into a glass measuring cup. You will find the level of the water did not rise, but it has fallen. Why? Because under heat, water becomes steam and evaporates into the atmosphere causing water levels to fall, not rise.
Global warming is based on pseudo-science and Al Gore is a politician, not a true scientist. The name of the Nobel prize he won is in "Peace" (although I don't really get why he was awarded this), not Physics, Chemistry, or any other science. There is a reason for this. . .
2007-10-16 10:08:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 2⤋
particular forecasts for particular time-place eventualities are basically no longer interior our potential at this element, extremely as "long island" isn't at a uniform top - low mendacity aspects will, needless to say, grow to be flooded till now the better aspects. ordinarily, although, the worst case concern is that land below 70m asl at present might desire to be flooded in a hundred years. A greater in all danger worst case concern - assuming mankind makes no important ameliorations to cutting-edge acitivities - could have 2-3m sea rises in 30-60 years and the entire 70m in a hundred-500 years. on the different hand, with complete international cooperation and willingness to manage AGW, then there is not any clarification why LI could adventure any important flooding. All rises in sea point will in all danger follow an exponential curve at first (e.g. 1m interior the 1st decade, 5m interior the 2nd, 25 interior the 0.33) till levelling off. of direction, flooding of the island could be your final difficulty - could GW get to that element, there could have been maximum of alternative, plenty greater intense consequences, that may not likely that all and sundry would be left to be bothered approximately whilst LI finally is going below water!
2016-10-09 08:55:55 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Don`t worry there`s a plan .Your governments feeding you lots of GM food in the hope you`ll grow gills so when New Orleans floods again you can be the new Atlantians .
Sorry for joking about it but i have to ,i don`t know if you lot heard about it, but earlier this year half of England was underwater ,Where i am got it first without warning the sight of that hill behind me ,turned into the white water rapiids will be burned in my brain forever .i can`t answer for New Orleans
But the reason why i stay here is the same reason why every one else stays here no money no choice
2007-10-16 11:05:13 · answer #3 · answered by keny 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I've been wondering that same thing. While I totally understand the desire to rebuild just to stick it to Nature, it doesn't seem very wise to rebuild in the same place. Only the French would have built a city under the sea level in a hurricane-prone region. Lets move it 30 miles, or raise the level of the city higher first! Or at least include pontoons as a requirement for any new structure, that way when it floods, the city can just float.
2007-10-16 10:04:25 · answer #4 · answered by Beardog 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
The main problem with NO is the disappearing wetlands so re-building those should be first on the agenda. The french surveyors said it was the worst place possible to put a city.
They tried to re-build the levees in 1967 but the environmentalists wouldn't let them.
NO has the highest murder rate of any city in the first world. 48 Hours Mystery showed the citizens protesting with 'Fire Nagin' signs. There may be hope!
2007-10-16 10:35:41 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
New Orleans was originally a swamp and ever since the first time we pumped the water out and built a city there it has flooded every time a big huricane comes along. The city was meant to be under water and regardless of global warming it will be under water again and again as long as we continue to build there.
2007-10-16 10:20:59 · answer #6 · answered by Wilkow Conservative 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Scooter, what you say is absolutely, positively correct.
Having said that, Nagin and his buds don't care, they just want money, eventhough it makes no sense to rebuild a city that will once again be underwater in the foreseeable future.
2007-10-16 10:25:31 · answer #7 · answered by Bubba 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
It's all politics. Anyone with a useful brain knows that New Orleans should never be rebuilt in the low areas. But all the politicians are afraid of alienating the black voters.
2007-10-16 09:55:40 · answer #8 · answered by Sean 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
About a third of New Orleans has been substantially abandoned, including the most low-lying areas. This is less because of the reasons you raise than it is an effort to eliminate the poor neighborhoods. New Orleans will never be what it was.
2007-10-16 09:58:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Gee... where I live, it's not unusual for sea level to rise 6 feet, twice a day. We just call them tides. If global warming causes them to rise to 6 feet and one inch twice a day, I think we'll manage somehow.
2007-10-16 10:02:10 · answer #10 · answered by nileslad 6 · 4⤊ 2⤋