Eroding beach. Replacing sand.

[tallyho8]

tallyho,You are making this tooooooo easy. May 8th 1995 Louisiana Flood. The city of New Orleans suffered $360 million in damages

Sorry, this is less than 3 percent of the damage caused by flooding in Katrina in New Orleans estimated at over 10 billion dollars in damage. I stated that most of the areas in New Orleans that flooded in Katrina had not flooded in over 250 years and this is correct. I have lived in Jefferson Parish my whole life (so far) and never missed a day of work due to flooding even with a 7 mile drive to work. In comparison, very few areas flooded in the 1995 flood and most of these were flooded with only less than a foot of water for a few hours. You can not name one city in America that would not be damaged by flooding if it had 20 inches of rain in less than 12 hours regardless of its elevation.

 

[coffeeman]

Hi Kendall
I am posting to your post as you seem to reflect my thoughts a lot. I am against ruining rivers with chemicals and oil etc. I remember very few fish and lots of crud in the rivers near my home. Now it's just nice to be able to catch a trout in the river. Also, it's nice to not have trash along the roadways. However, the earth can take care of things through time. I suspect it's a money game. The folks who make the $$s load the environmental gun and let the environmentalists fire the gun.

When I posted first message I was thinking of the Grand Canyon. How people want to preserve the natural wonder today. Then I thought, if the environmentalists were around a zillion years ago when the Grand Canyon was a ditch, would there be a canyon? A hundred studies would have been done and somehow man would have stopped the canyon from being made. So here's a case where change may be good. Just like in the saving the beach thing. If Joes' beach is leaving him, maybe Fred is getting more beach down the coast? Sometime change is good for one but bad for another.

Just another rambling thought on a subject that I really don't know a lot about.

Cheers

It always amazes me how people point the finger at “man” as being the culprit to all the Earths changes, when Mother Nature is FAR ,FAR, more destructive than Man.

When Mt. Helenen’s erupted Nearly 230 square miles of forest was blown down or buried beneath volcanic deposits. At the same time a mushroom-shaped column of ash rose thousands of feet skyward and drifted downwind, turning day into night as dark, gray ash fell over eastern Washington and beyond. The eruption lasted 9 hours, but Mount St. Helen‘s and the surrounding landscape were dramatically changed within moments.

And that’s just one volcano - times that by all the volcano’s on earth and the number is staggering.

And we have forest fires caused by Mother Nature For two terrifying days and night's - August 20 and 21, 1910 - the fire raged across three million acres of virgin timberland in northern Idaho and western Montana.
Many thought the world would end, and for 86, it did.Since then we have had equally large fire, one as I type this in Reno Nevada. And that’s only two fires , times that by the thousands that are started by lighting every year.

Yellowstone was decimated in the early 90’s, I was there the year after, and the park was healing just fine, and last year it actually was in better shape than the damage “man” caused by trying to “protect” the park.

Funny how the tree huggers complain about cutting down trees, but don’t utter a word when those exact same trees get burned up, because they could not be cut. I’ll never understand that one. When all that lumber could have built thousands of homes for free to the needy.

Man has never caused as much eco damage as Mother nature herself, and the earth continues to repair itself just as it has done since being under miles of ice. That’s what the Earth does.

Global warming is a farce. What scientists do agree on is little and says nothing about man-made global warming, to wit: (1) that global average temperature is probably about 0.6 degree Celsius -- or 1 degree Fahrenheit -- higher than a century ago; I guess we should park all those bad SUV’s.

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen by about 30% over the past 200 years; and that CO2 is one greenhouse gas, some level of an increase of which presumably would warm the Earth’s atmosphere were all else equal, which it demonstrably is not.

Until scientists are willing to save the U.S. taxpayer more than $5 billion per year thrown at researching climate, it is fair to presume the science is not settled. To settle this argument would mean the naysayers would be out of a 5 BILLION a year job.

So it looks like money is driving this argument not science, or an overwhelming desire to “save” the planet.