header pic

Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

The 'Old' CFN/Scout Crowd- Enjoy Civil discussion, game analytics, in depth player and coaching 'takes' and discussing topics surrounding the game. You can even have your own free board, all you have to do is ask!!!

Anyone is welcomed and encouraged to join our FREE site and to take part in our community- a community with you- the user, the fan, -and the person- will be protected from intrusive actions and with a clean place to interact.


Author

Topic: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

 (Read 5527 times)

SFBadger96

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 1161
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #476 on: April 15, 2020, 01:09:24 PM »
Implementing incremental change that recognizes the need to cut carbon emissions is hardly likely to erode our position in the world, and is unlikely to significantly hurt our GDP. It may hurt certain industries--and help others. 

Big Beef Tacosupreme

  • Player
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 843
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #477 on: April 15, 2020, 01:13:09 PM »
As I said, I strongly disagree.  I've looked at this thing over the years and it is evident to me "we" are simply going to find out what is going to happen, and a few tenths is not even measurable. 



Since 1940 the average world temperature has raised just 1 degree.  Think about the massive impact that 1 degree has had so far.

A few things to note:

1.  Temperature differences aren't spread equally around.  The polar regions have seen a significantly greater impact than 1 degree.

2.  Positive feedback loops -- a few tenths of a degree now can make a huge difference later on.  Eventually we reach a tipping point where most of the ice is gone and instead of reflecting that sunlight, the earth absorbs it.  Tundra melts, releasing millions of tons of methane into the air.  There are hundreds more.
3.  The ocean absorbs most of our excess CO2.  This had lead to ocean acidification, but it also leads to the oceans getting warmer.  Warmer oceans absorb less CO2.  More CO2 in the air leads to more global warming.

Let's use corona speak...projected temperature increases aren't a flat line.  It is more like an exponential curve.  We should be actively trying to flatten the curve.


CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #478 on: April 15, 2020, 01:18:00 PM »
Sure. More sediment would lead to even higher velocities, since the cross-sectional flow area would be decreased. Not all of that sediment is going to make it to the delta. Some will sit behind dams, but not much.

Q = VA (Q is flow rate, V = velocity, A = cross-sectional area). Q doesn't change. If A is reduced, V goes up.

The reason why the delta is going away is because the river is not supposed to be confined to where it is right now. The river has taken an estimated 300 different courses over time, but "we" now confine it to one course. Because New Orleans.
Badge: I'm not challenging your logic; I just don't understand it.  So . . .
1. Why is cross-sectional area reduced when the river is carrying more silt?
2. If we let the river take its course, would the delta stop subsiding?
It seems to me that if we undammed all the upstream tributaries and removed all the dikes and levees, the Mississippi would be muddier than it is now and would deposit more of its load along the way while also accumulating more from erosion.  It would build a wider flood plain and it would meander more.  And what was left of that increased load would be deposited at the mouth, building up the delta.
For me, liberal-arts major, it is a very counter-intuitive idea that reducing the load in the river by damming its upstream tributaries can have no effect on what's happening at the mouth of the river.  I'm not an engineer, but the guys I worked with in D/G&EnE, USMA, were, and what you are saying seems (24 years later) to contradict what they said about flood-control, etc.
Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 43608
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #479 on: April 15, 2020, 01:18:23 PM »
The US obviously is NOT going to zero carbon tomorrow, so my example is "Best case scenario that we all know is impossible and it hardly makes a difference."

We could all meet the Paris targets and it hardly makes a difference.

This train has done run.  We're too far down the curve to make a change that matters.  It's simple math if you use the models available and consider just how much "we" could cut GLOBAL CO2 emissions by when.  The MIT Climate Group has done work in this area and the output is very very dire even with optimistic CO2 cuts.


CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #480 on: April 15, 2020, 02:09:24 PM »
I just sat through an interesting webinar presented by TeachingAmericanHistory.org.  It was about the legal history of emergency orders, how they have fared in the courts, what precedents have been established, etc.  Some good comments toward the end about how the idea of federalism has gained some unlikely advocates in recent years, at least on certain issues.
The webinar will be archived in a day or two.  When it is, I will post the link.
Play Like a Champion Today

Big Beef Tacosupreme

  • Player
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 843
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #481 on: April 15, 2020, 02:57:46 PM »
The US obviously is NOT going to zero carbon tomorrow, so my example is "Best case scenario that we all know is impossible and it hardly makes a difference."

We could all meet the Paris targets and it hardly makes a difference.

This train has done run.  We're too far down the curve to make a change that matters.  It's simple math if you use the models available and consider just how much "we" could cut GLOBAL CO2 emissions by when.  The MIT Climate Group has done work in this area and the output is very very dire even with optimistic CO2 cuts.


The best time to start was yesterday.  The second best time to start is today.

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14345
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #482 on: April 15, 2020, 03:03:52 PM »
Badge: I'm not challenging your logic; I just don't understand it.  So . . .
1. Why is cross-sectional area reduced when the river is carrying more silt?
2. If we let the river take its course, would the delta stop subsiding?
It seems to me that if we undammed all the upstream tributaries and removed all the dikes and levees, the Mississippi would be muddier than it is now and would deposit more of its load along the way while also accumulating more from erosion.  It would build a wider flood plain and it would meander more.  And what was left of that increased load would be deposited at the mouth, building up the delta.
For me, liberal-arts major, it is a very counter-intuitive idea that reducing the load in the river by damming its upstream tributaries can have no effect on what's happening at the mouth of the river.  I'm not an engineer, but the guys I worked with in D/G&EnE, USMA, were, and what you are saying seems (24 years later) to contradict what they said about flood-control, etc.
1. Because, at lower velocities, the silt will settle at the bottom and reduce the depth. The hydraulic grade line would not change, and as a result, the velocities would increase.

2. For every action, there is a counter-reaction. The key to keeping the rivers from getting too "muddy" is to minimize the amount of soils/fertilizers/pollutants entering. This involves conservation practices by farmers (which they are subsidized to do already, but don't do enough of it), minimizing fertilization (which has been done but not enough) and minimizing pollutants from storm water (parking lots, roads, etc.). 

Of course, if we took out all the dams and levees, floodplains would get wider. Think of floodplains as natural storage - not conveyance bodies. When you take away all the natural storage with levees, all the water is forced into the main channel with zero storage. This all comes to a head when it finally gets to the Mississippi, which then start raging. If all of the floodplain were opened back up, we would see no flooding on the Mississippi - hence, no need for flood "control" (as if we can "control" flooding).

If we let the Mississippi take its course, the delta would slowly come back. Right now it's getting beat up by high velocities in extreme events. These are not natural disasters - they are man made disasters.

Finally, this flood "control" thing is big business for the Military guys (and USACE, of course). Not to mention the big contractors who make tons of money off of these flood "control" efforts.

Of course they would contradict me!!
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14345
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #483 on: April 15, 2020, 03:05:17 PM »
The best time to start was yesterday.  The second best time to start is today.
I'm busy with other shit.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

GopherRock

  • Starter
  • *****
  • Posts: 1154
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #484 on: April 15, 2020, 03:21:57 PM »
This guy is a geography teacher in Louisiana and has a very nice video series about the engineering works and the history of the lower Mississippi.


https://youtu.be/Tl04bfumzHE

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLNS985OSIAjtMsRUts2lqtFLph9Vjx17

As for the delta, the current one is so far  out in the Gulf that the sediment that makes it to the mouth is dumped off the continental shelf, doing nothing to build up the delta. It's due to subside. The other naturally occurring erosive forces don't stop when the silting does, though. Hence the massive losses of area.

Most of the silt in the Mississippi River above the Illinois seems to come from the tributaries on the west bank. The Minnesota, Zumbro, Cannon, Root, Cedar, Skunk, and Des Moines all dump a lot of silt in compared with the tributaries on the east side. Although the Chippewa and Black/La Crosse put in enough silt to create deltas on their own and create Lakes Pepin and Onalaska, respectively.

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 43608
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #485 on: April 15, 2020, 03:31:10 PM »
Basically, things are a mess, and we're all lucky they aren't worse.


Yet.

CWSooner

  • All Star
  • ******
  • Posts: 4865
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #486 on: April 15, 2020, 03:43:57 PM »
Finally, this flood "control" thing is big business for the Military guys (and USACE, of course). Not to mention the big contractors who make tons of money off of these flood "control" efforts.

Of course they would contradict me!!
Excellent point!  :86:
Play Like a Champion Today

Cincydawg

  • Ombudsman for the Secret Order of the Odd Fellows
  • Global Moderator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 43608
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #487 on: April 15, 2020, 03:50:08 PM »
The Miss River would be the Atchafalaya now already, right?

The current river bed would become a kind of oxbow thing?

I liked the term "Ruhr Valley" for what exists on the current stream.


847badgerfan

  • Administrator
  • Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 14345
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #488 on: April 15, 2020, 04:01:48 PM »
The Miss River would be the Atchafalaya now already, right?

The current river bed would become a kind of oxbow thing?

I liked the term "Ruhr Valley" for what exists on the current stream.


Could be. We don't know where it would be, because "they" messed it up.
U RAH RAH! WIS CON SIN!

Big Beef Tacosupreme

  • Player
  • ****
  • Default Avatar
  • Posts: 843
  • Liked:
Re: Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)
« Reply #489 on: April 15, 2020, 04:05:31 PM »
I'm busy with other shit.
You're missing your chance for your vehicle to be powered by 100% grade A Wisconsin cattle flatulence.

 

Support the Site!
Purchase of every item listed here DIRECTLY supports the site.