We all know the names of some famous(infamous) hurricanes such as: Andrew, Gilbert and Katrina; but why are tornadoes not given names? They are both forces of nature. Any ideas? Met. techs out there?
thanks for the answers so far, i appreciate this.
The Democrats said they had a plan to lower gas prices if elected to Congress in 2006. They got elected and crude oil went from .00 per barrel. to 3.00 (last number I heard).Gasoline went from .17 to (currently) .83 per gallon. Where is this great plan to bring down the cost?
Democrats want to reduce our dependence on imported oil, but will not allow drilling in ANWAR, or off any U.S. coastline. There is enough oil in any one of these areas to supply this country for 30 years without a drop of imported oil. The technology exists to do this with very little, if any negative impact to the environment. Remember that after Hurricanes Katrina, and Rita, 1000 oil rigs were destroyed in the Gulf of Mexico, but not one drop of crude oil leaked out.
Democratic mandates regarding ethanol is also responsible for the increase in food prices.
Also too, history has shown no country has ever taxed itself into prosperity, yet the Democrats answer to everything is raise taxes
I know gasoline prices have gone up during the Bush Administration. Gas prices have gone up since the days of Jimmy Carter. But the prices have "spiked" every day since the Dems took over Congress in 2007. Where is the great plan they had to reduce gas cost?
Of course the Saudi’s laughed at us. Why should they increase production for us when we won’t increase our own production? The Democrats have blocked every serious attempt to relieve dependence on foreign oil now, opting for alternatives that won’t be effective for another 20 years.
To leave their pets behind?
I can’t stop thinking of the girl that asked about shelters in LA taking pets because her family was evacuating today…yet couldn’t take their 4 dogs. Uggg…I could never leave my pets behind (fortunately, we don’t have hurricanes or tornadoes in my area).
What’s the normal practice?
Actually she said that during Katrina they left thier dog, then had family go let it out like days later, and the dog was lost and they never found it (duh). Now 3 years later they have 4 dogs that they were leaving behind in their home because they don’t have a car.
Don’t you think if you live in an area where evacuations are a possibility that you shouldn’t have pets that you can’t bring with you? I do…call me mean, but that’s my opinion!
Casey…do you read or watch the news at all? I am referring to Louisana (not Los Angeles). They are evacutating New Olreans due to hurricane Gustav.
Miaugh…didn’t see that one, but it’s just as bad. 
Good Evening Laurie 
My thoughts exactly!
Kimberly…my pets lives are more important to me than any material crap I could cram into my car. If I needed to evacuate my home…right now…My car would easily fit the 3 humans, 2 dogs, 1cat…that is all that really matters to me. The rest of the crap can be replaced…lives can not. I would never leave my animals to face those fears alone.
Add to Kimberly…I hope that you and your family are safe for this awful storm coming. Didn’t mean to imply that I didn’t care about your situation. I feel for you…I really do.
I agree L…who heartedly. Like Miaugh said…you should have a plan in place if you live in area like this. As far as Katrina goes…I understand that much more because it hit hard and fast and no one really expected it, but with Gustav, people have time to prepare. They don’t predict the storm to hit until Monday. Rental Cars anyone??? I’d sleep in my car w/my pets if I had to.
I can’t find the link…I didn’t answer it because I didn’t have anything of value to say.
Shanna…I hope that Hanna leaves you alone I think the reason this bugged me so much is because I’m on a completely different coast, but have known this hurricane was on it’s way. You’re right, they are very predictable and you should be prepared to leave before a last minute evacuation. Hope all works out for you and my other Floridian contacts, and all make it through the rest of hurricane season unscathed!
Crysti…I picture you, your hubby, Eli, Molly, and Tiki all loaded up in the car and headed somewhere safe before mandatory evacs are called for. I honestly can’t picture you leaving your precious fur babies behind.
We have 6 cats and a huge mutt. we live in a garage apt. in the country and we are surrounded by huge, and I mean HUGE trees.
We are expecting tornadoes and 50 mph winds, 5 inches of rain in 1 day, etc. Well, it is 12:02 a.m. Tuesday and we have no place to go. Last time I went to my b.f.’s with all the pets but we cant go there anymore cuz a tornado caused a 300 yr. old oak to fall right in the center of it and smashed it!! So, what would you folks do? The dog is in the garage right now, and I feel that is the safest place to be. Normally, I would load everyone up in the car but we only have 1 car and there would be no room for cages and the huge dog. Please let me know what you folks would do, especially before we lose the power! And there are no shelters to take all of us. thanx, and please wish us luck!!!!!!!!!
Nature girl, I want to personally thank you for your answer. How you managed to get out of the house fire with all of your animals is beyond me! All of my animals are rescue animals as well. We have lived thru much worse weather, and even tho this is ‘only’ a tropical storm, we can get hurricaine winds. I can’t squeeze everyone in the bathroom, there is just no way, so, we will just have to play things by ear. No matter where the kitties are hiding I can always find them, and only if a tree falls on the roof will we be in danger. I WONT even think about a tornado!!! Puhleeze!!! But this sure as heck aint no Katrina, but we are going to get hit the hardest in all of Florida – just my luck, lol!
thanx to all the well-wishers out there, but Nature Girl, you gave me strength! thanx again! – Lauren
Ever since 2004 and Katrina these idiot Meteorologist predict a busy hurricane season, I think they are buying into the global catastrophe theories that the Discovery channel is burning out. I want a job where I make 100000. a year, wrong 90% of the time and still don’t get fired.
You’ve considered two different economic shocks resulting from Katrina:
1) An aggregate supply shock: Katrina increased energy prices and temporarily reduced U.S. productive capacity.
2) An aggregate demand shock: Government responded to the hurricane with massive expenditures on aid and rebuilding.
What does the aggregate supply and aggregate demand model predict about the combined impact of these shocks on the U.S. economy?
A. Real GDP will definitely fall, but the price level will definitely rise.
B. Real GDP may rise or fall, but the price level will definitely fall.
C. Real GDP may rise or fall, but the price level will definitely rise.
D. Real GDP will definitely rise, but the price level may rise or fall.
Everyone knows how this happened.
Bush/Cheney planned 9/11. BUT, they could not blame Iraq directly, so they called OBL, and told him he would be the fall guy. OBL agreed, as he did with the Clintons on the Cole, the Embassies, and previous WTC attack.(Bush was behind all those attacks, too, shhh) They don’t want you to know that either.
Then, after getting Saddam, they would stay there for years after, to control the oil supply. Pay no attention to how much oil we bought from Iraq prior to the invasion.
Also, the government’s secret Hurricane producing machine would create a storm so severe that it could wipe out an entire city. New Orleans was chosen, so the government could use a hurricane as an excuse to raise oil prices. So Bush is behind Katrina TOO!!!
The attacks in Spain, London, and all over the world were orchestrated by Bush, to make people believe we’re in a war on terror. Watch Tony Blair’s bank account after he leaves office. He was in on it too.
IT IS SO OBVIOUS!
During Katrina, we were bombarded daily by videos of victims blaming the federal government for not helping, yet, I’ve not heard that from these people, nor the people in Nebraska where the tornado hit, or the people of Greensburg, Kansas, where a tornado removed half the town from the map.
Truth seeker, If Bush had gone immediatley to N.O., those on the left would have accused him of using it for a photo op.
It was 3 days before Bush went to Greensburg. Tornado hit May 4, 2007, Bush visited May 7.
i’m doing a proyect, i have to find examples of hurricanes and tornadoes in the american continent in the last 2 years. i’ve been running a whole bunch of searches and can’t find anything.
PLEASE include a link. what would work best would be an online newspaper story. i neEd these answers today.
whoever can give me 4 examples (two tornadoes two hurricanes) with a website or link will get the 10 points. HHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLPPPPPPPPPPP
Whoops. that last word was suposed to come out HELP not HHHHEEELLL sorry.
this is pathetic. i finally found some examples, and guess what? GREENSBURG TORNADO!!!!! sheesh. millions of people know about it and not a single on of you could type it. either way, just type in some examples of tornadoes. i already found the hurricanes (KATRINA!!!!! that was a HUGE issue, and it seems like not a single one of you has even heard about it)
oh well. tornadoes welcome
You’ve considered two different economic shocks resulting from Katrina:
1) An aggregate supply shock: Katrina increased energy prices and temporarily reduced U.S. productive capacity.
2) An aggregate demand shock: Government responded to the hurricane with massive expenditures on aid and rebuilding.
What does the aggregate supply and aggregate demand model predict about the combined impact of these shocks on the U.S. economy?
A. Real GDP may rise or fall, but the price level will definitely rise.
B. Real GDP will definitely fall, but the price level will definitely rise.
C. Real GDP may rise or fall, but the price level will definitely fall.
D. Real GDP will definitely rise, but the price level may rise or fall.
I think it’s A, because only the price level changes in the long run, correct?
You’ve considered two different economic shocks resulting from Katrina:
1) An aggregate supply shock: Katrina increased energy prices and temporarily reduced U.S. productive capacity.
2) An aggregate demand shock: Government responded to the hurricane with massive expenditures on aid and rebuilding.
What does the aggregate supply and aggregate demand model predict about the combined impact of these shocks on the U.S. economy?
A. Real GDP may rise or fall, but the price level will definitely fall.
B. Real GDP may rise or fall, but the price level will definitely rise.
C. Real GDP will definitely fall, but the price level will definitely rise.
D. Real GDP will definitely rise, but the price level may rise or fall.
For example, Cuba offered to send 1,586 doctors and and at least 26 tons of supplies and equipment, but it was never used.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/09/05/katrina.cuba/
It’s said that people have to make everything about politics in times that truly matter, where people need help.
Allied countries offered 4 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But ONLY million has been used. http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/09/05/katrina.cuba/
For the last couple of years there seem to be SO MANY major national disasters. Ohio is underwater, fires burning CONSTANTLy everywhere. The one in California has been burning for like a month. A Hurricane just devastated a part of Mexico, Katrina wasn’t too long ago, and again SO MANY fires and even more hurricanes.
And let’s not forget about the terrible tornados of which more than I can think of right now have ripped through our country recently.
Isn’t this a HUG upswing from what we used to have as of about 6 years and more ago?
I have tons of shampoo, conditioner, soap, lots of personal items, that I would like to donate somewhere in the US. I have donated to a woman’s crisis center before, locally, but I want to feel I am really helping someone in NEED. my dad when he’s a pilot and stays in hotels, he gets little bottles of soap, shampoo, lotion, etc, personal items, and I have collected a lot of them, and want to find a good place to give them.
Aside from Katrina, not that that isn’t an option, I’m just wondering what other disasters have occured in the US that need help like this?
I can think of the tornadoes, and there were fires in California a few years back.. but where would find out more?
Just want to help.
Thanks
Lack of coordination and confusion in the wake of Katrina has raised many questions. There are many religious groups that provide hurricane, tsunami, and earthquake relief, and, as always during disasters, various public officials became the scapegoats for our general lack of preparation for mega-disasters. Such an army could have multiple purposes: first, forming a command post, giving logistical support, providing a "war room" to supply coordination and strategy, and offering coordination of voluntary efforts with the approval of all involved. Secondly, serving as a prototype for a permanent worldwide relief force to supplant armies of destruction on the theory that, as we become more committed to the daunting task of relieving human suffering, we collectively become more reluctant to add to it through war! Everybody could help. A "positive heroism" ethic might replace militarism and gang ethics. The education and engineering corps of the this army could quickly set up schools..
I was In Broward County and this hurricane hit and left the lower half of Florida without power for about 2 weeks. It was right before Katrina or the one after it? I just can’t remember anymore..
• Only 2 percent of the federal government’s hurricane-related funding went toward education recovery.
• The costs of hurricane destruction in K-12 and higher education were estimated at .2 billion, but only .2 billion in federal funding had been committed to restoring physical structures and property. Some rebuilding funds have come from the local and state levels and insurance, but several projects are unfinished.
• Displaced students re-enrolled in schools in 49 states, but a lack of adequate federal funding meant that schools with the greatest number of displaced students had insufficient classrooms, staff and supplies to support them. The report found that as many as 15,000 K-12 public school students and 35,000 college students in Louisiana and Mississippi missed school last year due to lingering problems associated with Katrina.
• Nearly one out of every six students in Louisiana’s public colleges and universities dropped out for the 2005-06 school year. In the 2006-07 school year, more than 26,000 students from Louisiana public colleges and almost 9,000 Mississippi college students remained out of school.
I have lived in New Orleans for 7 months. Obviously there is not a huge supply of used furniture, household goods, etc., in the city due to the extensive damage from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With that said, does anyone know of any good used stores, still up and running, or newly opened in the area? I am looking for great old furniture, pottery, etc.. Any information would be greatly appreciated!
Before those atacks on our nation there was terrible disasters. But it seems that since then, like Katrina and the recent devastating tornado in Kansas, the media has nationalized local tragedy. That sounds insensitive, but consider what I am suggesting.
Or maybe I am way off. Maybe now the world is globalized and info travels like light speed and we are all part of the New World Order.
Standing outside his restaurant in the city’s Faubourg Marigny district, Dale DeBruyne prepared for Gustav the way he did for Katrina — stubbornly.
"I’m not leaving," he said.
DeBruyne, 52, said his house was stocked with storm supplies, including generators.
"I stayed for Katrina," he said, "and I’ll stay again."
"This is the real deal, not a test," Nagin said as he issued the order, warning residents that staying would be "one of the biggest mistakes of your life." He emphasized that the city will not offer emergency services to anyone who chooses to stay behind.
Predictions are for a cat 5 hurricane. Cat 4 or 5. Doesn’t matter. Katrina should have been a wake up call for anybody living in the NO area. If people decide to stay, they’re gambling with their lives.
While stationed on the Island of Guam I had no other choice but to stay on island through the typhoons that struck. I remember Super Typhoon Paka very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Paka
I guess he’s gotta do what he’s gotta do. He’s obviously a gambling man because he loves playing Russian Roulette.
Don’t the neocons believe that Katrina and the Asian tsunami were ordained by God and ordered by Bush? Is Bush being punished for hanging Saddam?
Questions for Al Gore
By Dr. Roy Spencer
25 May 2006
Gore’s Inconvenient Truth….
Dear Mr. Gore:
I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.
As a climate scientist myself — you might remember me…I’m the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back — I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.
1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn’t happen if it weren’t for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?
2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted….I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists’ predictions now?
3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.
4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?
5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son’s tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India , your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I’m confused…do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China ?
6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven’t there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?
7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe .
At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy… you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I’m sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration’s view?
Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can’t understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.
I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.
Your "Good Friend,"
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville , Alabama . ??Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change. Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.
Questions for Al Gore
By Dr. Roy Spencer
25 May 2006
Gore’s Inconvenient Truth….
Dear Mr. Gore:
I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.
As a climate scientist myself — you might remember me…I’m the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back — I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.
1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn’t happen if it weren’t for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?
2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted….I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists’ predictions now?
3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.
4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?
5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son’s tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India , your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I’m confused…do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China ?
6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven’t there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?
7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe .
At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy… you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I’m sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration’s view?
Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can’t understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.
I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.
Your "Good Friend,"
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville , Alabama . ??Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change. Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.
Good grief does anybody know anything about how are government works? Federal goverment can not step in until the state asks for help. And LA knew the hurricane was going to hit them for about 3+ days so why didn’t they ask for help before the hurricane hit? Why did they wait till afterwards? B/c if you read the news that day and in the following weeks, the fed gave ~ billion dollars to LA. And now you have Dems running around saying Bush didn’t do anything. He should have helped sooner. Why doesn’t he care. Like I stated before, Bush could not step in into the governor of LA, which is by the way a Dem, asked him for help. When she did ask for help though, noticed Bush sent military trucks in with food, medicine, and supplies to those people in New Orleans.
And for all those who said the fed could have done a better job, like one of the users stated below, how in the world do you plan for a whole city to become wiped out?
hey map that would have been nice but we have a balance system for a reason. If the Federal gov decided to do that with Katrina, then that means they can just but in whenever they feel like it into state business. That is what you are stating.
Questions for Al Gore
By Dr. Roy Spencer
25 May 2006
Gore’s Inconvenient Truth….
Dear Mr. Gore:
I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.
As a climate scientist myself — you might remember me…I’m the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back — I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.
1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn’t happen if it weren’t for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?
2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted….I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists’ predictions now?
3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.
4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?
5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son’s tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India , your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I’m confused…do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China ?
6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven’t there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930’s…before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don’t you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?
7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe .
At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy… you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I’m sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration’s view?
Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can’t understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.
I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.
Your "Good Friend,"
Dr. Roy W. Spencer
Dr. Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. In the past, he has served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville , Alabama . ??Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement and the American Meteorological Society’s Special Award for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work. He is the author of numerous scientific articles that have appeared in Science, Nature, Journal of Climate, Monthly Weather Review, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Journal of Climate and Applied Meteorology, Remote Sensing Reviews, Advances in Space Research, and Climatic Change. Dr. Spencer received his Ph.D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin in 1981.
