Government Policy and Budget Discussion Thread (no politics)

[ELA]

Speaking of the Gulf, I was very wary, but had this book recommended to me, and while very thick, he does a great job of not getting bogged down.  Very well written

[Cincydawg]

I used to have long discussions with some folks at work about climate change, and it aroused my curiosity to a significant "degree" (sic).  I had both Nature and Science coming across my desk each week, so I started trying to read the articles in them about climate.  My problem was that they used so much jargon like "the 3STO4g model" that they were hard to follow.  Most were about a modification of some third order term in a climate model based on another analysis of past climates.  Some tried to calculate the impact of say permafrost melting, I recall that one fairly clearly (in concept).  It was pretty scary.  Many dealt which changes in our albedo, both melting ice and increased cloud cover.  Suffice it to say none of them outright said "Climate change is real and here is the evidence.".  That was not their purpose obviously.

My impression, duh, is that we humans have a lot of hubris thinking we can model climate change.  The only data we have with which to construct a model is what has happened up to now, and it is surprisingly difficult to get reliable data on simple things like global temperature over time.  There were differing models for THIS folks used.  How can you devise a model if history is unclear?  What might happen in the future is speculative.  And the 5 or 6 or 7 main models of course differ to some "degree" in their projections, which is not a shock either.

That climate is changing and it may be in large part due to man's actions is not something I argue against.  I think it likely, I don't know how much.  I also know with high certainty that China and India are NOT going to do much to reduce their CO2 output, nor is the US and Europe for that matter.  It's window dressing.

The US and Europe MIGHT meet the Paris targets by 2030, but that clearly is not going to matter if the models are roughly correct.  And China and India, well, they make whatever we do irrelevant.

[CWSooner]

Where?

I'm all for taking out every damn dam and every damn levee too, but it wouldn't do a damn thing for the delta. I understand the shipping industry would suffer. Transition those workers to rail and trucking. Let the rivers have their floodplains and floodways back. The below was a bad plan, and still is.

Sorry.  U.S. Military Academy.

Can you explain why more sediment in the Mississippi would not help stop or at least slow the subsidence of the delta?

[MrNubbz]

The US and Europe MIGHT meet the Paris targets by 2030, but that clearly is not going to matter if the models are roughly correct.  And China and India, well, they make whatever we do irrelevant.

Another sad fact,I'm going outside it's sunny today but staying cold

[Cincydawg]

We get some appreciable portion of electricity from dams, 8% I think or about that.  It's on a par with wind power, maybe greater.  Dams do disrupt nature of course, but they can also reduce flooding in areas and enhance navigation in others.  Barge shipments are cheap.

We're smart, we can handle it.

[Big Beef Tacosupreme]

I used to have long discussions with some folks at work about climate change, and it aroused my curiosity to a significant "degree" (sic).  I had both Nature and Science coming across my desk each week, so I started trying to read the articles in them about climate.  My problem was that they used so much jargon like "the 3STO4g model" that they were hard to follow.  Most were about a modification of some third order term in a climate model based on another analysis of past climates.  Some tried to calculate the impact of say permafrost melting, I recall that one fairly clearly (in concept).  It was pretty scary.  Many dealt which changes in our albedo, both melting ice and increased cloud cover.  Suffice it to say none of them outright said "Climate change is real and here is the evidence.".  That was not their purpose obviously.

My impression, duh, is that we humans have a lot of hubris thinking we can model climate change.  The only data we have with which to construct a model is what has happened up to now, and it is surprisingly difficult to get reliable data on simple things like global temperature over time.  There were differing models for THIS folks used.  How can you devise a model if history is unclear?  What might happen in the future is speculative.  And the 5 or 6 or 7 main models of course differ to some "degree" in their projections, which is not a shock either.

That climate is changing and it may be in large part due to man's actions is not something I argue against.  I think it likely, I don't know how much.  I also know with high certainty that China and India are NOT going to do much to reduce their CO2 output, nor is the US and Europe for that matter.  It's window dressing.

The US and Europe MIGHT meet the Paris targets by 2030, but that clearly is not going to matter if the models are roughly correct.  And China and India, well, they make whatever we do irrelevant.

I'm going to take a second and talk about this post, because there's a lot of things I think I can clear up for you.

We can certainly model climate change.

There are very simple models out there, but we are constantly trying to add data to make them more accurate.  This also increases their complexity.  Think of it like the 80-20 rule.  We can absolutely calculate much heat will be retained by increasing CO2 concentrations.  We can also calculate how much additional water vapor (also a greenhouse gas) will be created by increasing temperatures.  This is fairly simple and gets us 80% of the way there.  The last 20%?  How much less sunlight will be reflected with the reductions in ice?  How will thawing permafrost will release methane (another greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere?  What will happen if the rain forest continues to lose mass?  Etc. etc. etc.

Most models have consistently UNDERESTIMATED the climate change in the real world.  No model is perfect, but we are getting closer and more accurate every day.

China and India are working very hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Even if they weren't - their inaction has no bearing on the actions we can do in our country. 

[Mdot21]

The US and Europe MIGHT meet the Paris targets by 2030, but that clearly is not going to matter if the models are roughly correct.  And China and India, well, they make whatever we do irrelevant.

How come no one ever talks about this? It drives me insane. China and India are literally 1A & 1B for most over-populated, disgusting, polluting countries in the entire world. Yet no one ever says anything about it.

Can’t have plastic straws in some parts of the US bc: plastic in the oceans. That’s hysterical considering something like 90% of all plastic pollution in the oceans come from....CHINA, India, and other Asian countries. And Africa. 

The US and Europe could crush the Paris Accord targets, stop using fossil fuel period and never use plastic again and it wouldn’t matter...Bc: China & India.

[MrNubbz]

  What will happen if the rain forest continues to lose mass?  

I think cutting down trees is the culprit.On the hottest summer daze take a stoll in a real woods,doesn't take a biologist to understand that

[Mdot21]

China and India are working very hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  Even if they weren't - their inaction has no bearing on the actions we can do in our country.

China and India have way too many people to do anything real about their emissions or pollution. You’re talking about 37% of the worlds entire population in just two countries. 

And they are both relatively poor. China has the worlds second largest economy in terms of GDP, but most of that wealth is concentrated in a small section of the population and their manufacturing revolution (driven by stupid greedy US multi-nationals) which saw them rise into a borderline superpower lifted many people out of poverty. But not most. There are still like a billion people living in poverty in China. And India is way worse off. They are a poor ass country. Going to be extremely hard for either of those countries to do jackshit to curb their pollution. Especially when literally probably 2+ billion of their citizens are dirt ass poor. 

[MrNubbz]

Can’t have plastic straws in some parts of the US bc: plastic in the oceans. That’s hysterical considering something like 90% of all plastic pollution in the oceans come from....CHINA, India, and other Asian countries. And Africa.

I doubt this,on any weekend during football seasons think about how many plastic bottles are thrown away and not recycled.Out of sight out of mind.Think of these packed stadiums Sat/Sun 60- 100,000 plus theyre not recycling all that.We're just as guilty

[Mdot21]

I doubt this,on any weekend during football seasons think about how many plastic bottles are thrown away and not recycled.Out of sight out of mind.Think of these packed stadiums Sat/Sun 60- 100,000 plus theyre not recycling all that.We're just as guilty

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/

93% of the plastics flowing into the ocean come from 10 rivers. 8 are in Asia. 2 are in Africa.

[847badgerfan]

Sorry.  U.S. Military Academy.

Can you explain why more sediment in the Mississippi would not help stop or at least slow the subsidence of the delta?

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.

[Cincydawg]

If China and India can't cut CO2 emissions significantly, which is reality, what we do here is irrelevant, rounding error, at best, and at significant expense.

The US could magically go to zero carbon tomorrow and the projected impact on global temperature by 2050 is a few tenths of a degree, maybe.

[MrNubbz]

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/

93% of the plastics flowing into the ocean come from 10 rivers. 8 are in Asia. 2 are in Africa.

And how can they prove that?Where are all the plastic containers/bottles/straws/bags going from big events in N.America.Landfills,they are definitely not remanufacturing all of that.