E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Robert Ray/ AP
Water levels on the Mississippi River continue to fall near Vicksburg, Miss., seen in this Aug. 6, 2012 photo.
ABOARD THE DREDGE JADWIN IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER – The drought of 2012 has humbled the mighty Mississippi River.
A year after near-historic flooding, the river’s water levels are at near-historic lows from Cairo, Ill., where the Ohio River empties into it, to New Orleans, just north of its endpoint at the Gulf of Mexico.
In July, water levels in Cairo, Memphis, Tenn., and Vicksburg, Miss., dipped below those of the historic drought of 1988. That’s affecting everything from commerce on the maritime superhighway to recreation to the drinking water in Louisiana.
The biggest impact may be on shipping. “It’s getting near critical,” said Austin Golding, a third-generation co-owner of Vicksburg, Miss.-based Golding Barge Lines. “Without more rain, we’re heading into uncharted territory.”
About $180 billion worth of goods move up and down the river on barges, 500 million tons of the basic ingredients for much of the U.S. economy, according to the American Waterways Operators, a trade group. It carries 60 percent of the nation’s grain, 22 percent of the oil and gas and 20 percent of the coal, according to American Waterways Operators. It would take 60 trailer trucks to carry the cargo in just one barge, 144 18-wheeler tankers to carry the oil and gas in one petroleum barge.
MSNBC's Thomas Roberts talks to NBC News Correspondent John Yang and CNBC's Jackie Deangelis about the record-breaking drought gripping much of the country.
The low water levels mean that barge companies have to lighten their load by about 25 percent so the barges ride higher in the water, reducing what’s known as the barges’ “draught.”
That means each tow boat is moving less cargo than usual even though “it takes up the same amount of fuel to burn and the same amount of manpower,” said Ed Henleben, senior operations manager for Ingram Barge Co. in St. Louis.
Already this summer, there are been 15 to 20 cases of barges running aground, according to Steve Jones, the Army Corps of Engineer’s Mississippi River navigation manager. Some cases have stalled river traffic for as much at three days. At this point in an average summer, there’d be only about eight or 10, Jones said.
And as the water drops, the river channel narrows. In some places, the Mississippi is a one-way river as barges heading north have to wait for traffic headed south, adding to the costly delays.
The result: Millions of dollars in higher shipping costs.
“The products we tow, that product costs more,” said Golding. “Somebody’s got to come up with that cost.”
Economists say ultimately, it will be the consumer. “Some markets such as spot markets for agricultural products will be immediately impacted by increased transportation costs,” said Donald Sweeney of the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
The Mississippi River, an essential waterway responsible for transporting billions of dollars of products every year, is becoming unnavigable. NBC's John Yang reports.
The navigational hazards of the low water levels are compounded by last year’s flooding, which resulted in a great deal of soil and silt being washed into the river, altering and raising the riverbed.
Because of that sediment in a flood, “as the ceiling rises, so does the floor,” said Golding. “We’ve just dealt with a historic flood, then the water drops.… We have some 50-year guys who’ve never seen anything like this before. It’s a completely different river than anybody’s ever seen.”
As the Army Corps of Engineers’ navigation manager, Jones spend eight to 10 hours a day directing dredges to keep a navigable channel from St. Louis south at least nine feet deep (a system of locks and dams manages the water depth north of St. Louis). So far, the government has spent about $60 million in the effort.
Grocery stores around the nation may soon see a ripple effect of the drought, with animal-based, perishable foods costs increasing by nearly 5 percent in the coming year. NBC's Janet Shamlian reports
The low water levels in the Mississippi are also resulting in a wedge of salt water creeping upriver from the Gulf of Mexico, threatening the drinking water supply in New Orleans. The Army Corps of Engineers hopes to begin work this week on a $5.8 million underwater barrier to block the saltwater’s advance.
The river’s low levels are the result of a combination of the mild winter in the Upper Midwest, which resulted in very little snow melt to feed the river, and the dry spring and summer in the tributaries to the Mississippi and Ohio rivers.
What will it take to get the Mississippi back to normal? Says Jones: “Rainfall – which will occur, it’s just a question of when.”
Drought conditions plague much of the United States after a summer of scorching temperatures and a lack of rain. The dryness is affecting America's farmland, threatening crops like soybean and corn.
More coverage of the drought:
‘Best year ever’ for some farmers outside drought region
Forced to sell cattle during drought, dairy farmers ‘just keep praying’ for rain
Drought expected to take toll at checkout
Americans tell their story of #Drought2012
In drought-stricken Wisconsin, farmers helping farmers
Emergency well drilling brings relief to farmers stricken by drought
Have you been affected by the worst drought in more than 50 years? Share your photos with us on Instagram, Tumblr or Twitter with the tag #Drought2012. You can also upload your photos in the box below.
Leave a Comment:
Seems like a good opportunity to refurbish the river. Dredge/reclaim all the top soil. Fix the bridges. Improve/repair the flood control dykes. Remove garbage/old tires etc. I hate the phrase but... Make Lemonade. Oh, that's right. That would cost money. We wouldn't want to invest in our future.
Truly... this country needs to stop thinking of logic and science as left wing elitist hobbies.
I with ya Sane. Where is we going to get the money?
The US can secure loans for nearly 0% interest from China and others.
It is horrible that this is happening and I feel sorry for those affected, but I get the feeling that the states most affected are the ones who are violently opposed to any ecological responsibility. One has to wonder how bad things there have to get before they consider consulting science.
What would science do? Maybe the mythbusters can solve it.
What in the world is "ecological responsibility"?
I wonder if there are any conservatives who still believe the tobacco company propaganda or if that group has all died off from lung cancer and been replaced by the group that believes oil company propaganda.
The rains will come; the rains will not come. Part of a natural cycle, as is global warming, every 1,500 years or so. The problem we will have in the future will not be the result of climate change; we will adapt. The problem is, as someone indicated, in 1960 CA planned for 20M people, and now they have 30M. We will have too many people to feed in times of no rain. Then, we'll really have a problem on our hands.
The lower part of this article highlights the fact that the Mississippi is a Tidal Estuary for a significant portion of its length, hence the worry about the drinking water drawn by port cities.
For those who don't know what a Tidal Estuary is, it is a condition where the salt water of the Gulf travels up the river to a length sufficient to equal its depth in the gulf at the mouth of the river. This is a condition that makes the river navigable from the Tidal Line south to the Gulf regardless of the amount of rain, but it also makes that water undrinkable, and useless for agriculture, unless desalination plants are built along the river.
To understand just how far North this issue could extend to, look at the Hudson River, which is Tidal all the way North to the Troy Dam, and would be Tidal even farther North if the dam wasn't there. The Hudson is even more navigable than the Mississippi is, and can take Deep Draft vessels that cannot even enter the Mississippi, and yet the Tidal Line Ebbs and Flows to a similar degree.
The point is that the Mississippi river will remain a navigable waterway, but we won't be able to drink the water or use it for agriculture unless the Drought problem is fixed.
One solution would be to establish large holding tanks along the length of the river where excess water would be stored in Flood years, and used to keep the river normally saline.
In the article, they suggest trucks as the alternative. In fact, there are several freight railroads that more or less parallel the Mississippi. They could easily handle the Mississippi traffic and they are in great shape, perhaps the best they have been in their entire existence. They don't rely on government subsidies, as the riverboats do, and in fact, they are tax payers at all levels. They don't close up in winter and they can haul tremendous loads with the smallest environmental footprint of all transportation modes. A single train can haul 20,000 tons of either coal or grain. Thanks to the environmental group, some coal cars are in storage right now. Of course, with the drought, the grain business is going to be greatly diminished this Fall.
For those of you who are anti dams, there is a water storage solution. During spring run off siphon off a portion of the water and pump it into a reservoir then there will be water for when the streams are low or dry. I know this works. Research Lake Nighthorse to see how.
as AG99 pointed out. look at the colorado river. it dosan't even reach the ocean anymore.
well, with all the glaciers melting and the polar bears dying and whatnot, maybe its better that it doesn't reach the ocean
According to Al Gore, the ocean will come up to meet the Colorado. Of course, he just bought significant property (Al's a 1%er) on the ocean. Go figure.
Canadian DNR says the polar bear populations are NOT down, JJ. Are you hoarding polar bears in your garage again?
No, no polar bears in my garage, that I know of. And, that's good news, it's working, Coca Cola is saving the polar bears.
And, if the ocean does meet the Colorado River, will there then be sharks swimming upstream? I could fish for some shark in Glenwood Springs, CO. That would be great.
That's because of increased population all along the river, it has not reached into Mexico for many years.
2 things 1 try the train to move these products to market 18 wheeler's use more gas and oil and 2 lets clean the river while it's low and get all the trash out of it that will create jobs people will work, the place will look nicer, the trash can be recycled tell me how this is a bad idea and it can't be done
What happens when you have no water to generate electricity anymore. You get an electric generator and spew more carbon dioxide into the atmospere. I would like to make a prediction that the oil companies shall one day become so rich that they will eventually take over our government all together. My advice is get your backup solar panel now while the price is still reasonable. God help us all!
run for the woods!
there may be a slight difference between "the mississippi is low" and "no water".
Yes, by all means, call Solyndra up and get a solar panel right now. Oh...no, wait...they were as phony as the whole alternative energy industry. What do you suppose the solar panel is going to do for you Monkey? Warm your tea? Government does not make a profit, so corporations are not interested in becoming the government. The money the government is wasting is OUR money. not theirs.
Stop ethanol production now.
You people are forgetting something. Transporting goods on the waterways is tax free.
On a positive note, it's making for great sand bars for those party animals out there! I spent many summers camping and partying out there at Friars Point, Ms.
And this is the same river that took out Tunica, MS - an old party haunt for me (before the casinos.)
The world changes every day..... A human being cannot stop the changes.
The Mississippi River is one example, for each day it is different........... New Orleans is another example of a human being trying to hold back the changes on earth................ Has a plan ever been created for the abandonment/relocation of New Orleans before a critical happening?
Or as we watch the Maldives Islands and other Islands retreat into the ocean... Do we let our arrogance and complacency replace common sense and continue spending billions of dollars in attempting to hold back the ocean............... Interestingly, a short distance away a large sinkhole is growing; if a sinkhole begins in New Orleans, everything will be past tense............ Good Luck!
I know, blame BUSH !
There is not much common sense left anymore, its all either left-brain or right brain, everyone thinks political preference is whats running, ruining or saving the world. We are all doomed if this is the path we stay on. Mother Nature will outsmart any dem, repub, tea, or any party, there is a plan in place for the planet and it has played out over billions of years, regardless of who is president, and my guess is, again, regardless of who is president, that plan will continue to be played out. Climate changes yes, global warming, maybe right now, but it won't last. After the next ice age, maybe the reptiles will take over again, and it will all go full circle.
The Mississippi left Minnesota just fine. What you other morons did with it south of here is your problem.
You should p1ss in it on the Iowa border, might actually do it some good
I like Iowa okay...in the winter. In the hot summer days the hog stench is more than a person can stand. Good place to build a mosque.
Folks,
This is quite long but hopefully constructive, and addresses many of the issues raised in the comments so far.
America is at a cross roads. Either they do something about man made climate change or Nature will take its course, and if the latter it is no good blaming God: Humans have free will and will make mistakes as they learn not to repeat them. This is evidently part of the celestial beings (CB) grand plan, but that plan has fall back contingencies (bear in mind that the human species if removed would benefit every other life form on Earth - who are also part of CB's remit). I don't think it an accident that America is the most developed nation on Earth and the engine for the world's economy, and so that 5% of the world's population causes 25% of its pollution; meanwhile the rest of the world is on the brink of following exactly the same path pioneered by the West's industrialisation up till now - with catastrophic consequences; e.g. human extinction. Unless that is America sets an example for the world to follow, politically and from the low carbon economies they could pioneer. If this doesn't happen the same result will happen the "hard way" from the fact that, as the droughts of the 30s show - America is on a climate cusp. Doing nothing about man made climate change will lead to America's economic collapse, hence also the global economies and so consequent reduction in pollution. This will buy time for the rest of the world to get their act together and not follow the same route.
Regards the climate change "controversy" the following may assist neutrals to make their own minds up.
Anyone can believe what they want and will rearrange and select "facts" to suit their own little worlds of like minded people. But little worlds are part of bigger worlds,...and so on up to the global world we live in. And beliefs have consequences! Ultimately the global world will reflect the net result of those consequences.
The following are email exchanges on climate change I had a while back. The first (dated 30/May2008) with an American friend, a member of a Christian group who were trying to get to the bottom of climate change. The second (dated 6/July/2011) a climatologist I know.
1st mail:
John,
This is the old, and never ending story of cherry picking genuine science quotes and making them look contradictory and therefore to portray that scientists’ can’t agree and that man made climate change is still a matter dispute. It is important to emphasise to people that there are two aspects to climate change:
The first is unequivocal: Without greenhouse gases the earth would have a surface temperature of minus 60 C. It is the green house gases: CO2, water vapor, methane principally – that make the earth habitable. It took millennia for the constituents of the ocean/atmosphere to achieve the balance that made life possible on earth. Since then there have been fluctuations in the earth’s climate caused by changes in the earth’s orbit/axis of spin – but the atmospheric constituents remained roughly the same; apart from pollution added by violent volcanic eruptions – but such pollution is washed out within months. This explains the non-man made climate change found in the climate record; e.g. ice ages/hot spells; note that these were hemispheric effects in terms of life; e.g. the southern half of the planet was habitable when the ice ages made the north largely uninhabitable. However, since the industrial revolution mankind has been rapidly increasing green house gases, mainly CO2 and methane – through population growth and deforestation. So what you have now is a second source of climate change on top of the natural factors; the natural factors may augment or diminish the effect of increased green house gases – depending on where we are in the natural cycles.
The second aspect to climate change is complex. Although it is unequivocal that the atmosphere will warm; it will do so unevenly as the balance of atmospheric constituents change. For example, the temperature inside a kettle remains the same no matter how much heat you add, until all the water is boiled away. Likewise for changes to the atmosphere due to increased green house gases. However, because there is more than one factor, some of the factors cancel out; others augment the effect of each other; in between there will be points of equilibrium. However, if the atmosphere keeps warming there will ultimately be a point of equilibrium which will not sustain life as we know it. A simplistic image that might be helpful is to regard the atmosphere like a see saw: natural changes cause it to rock one way and another about a point of equilibrium; man made changes to the atmospheric constituents are adding an impetus to the rocking; eventually the see saw will rock in one direction too far; this is the tipping point when one extreme becomes established – possibly an ice age; possibly a hot atmosphere like Venus; but both are catastrophic! Note that points of equilibrium in between do not mean that things are OK; e.g. one likely point of equilibrium would mean that the US becomes a desert!
Now to your link.
What the paper has identified is a point on equilibrium in the overall warming process as described above. The mechanism that the paper referenced is well known and was a well documented early concern that needed further work; the concern was that as sea ice melted because of warming, the ocean’s circulation would weaken; this would stop warm water being carried toward the poles from the equator. The net effect of this was difficult to predict, but some speculated that this would tend to delay atmospheric warming because cold water would remain at the poles, which would delay the rate of glacier melting, perhaps even lead to net (over seasons) ice growth. The importance of ice is that it reflects a large amount of the sun’s energy. At that time coupled atmosphere/ocean models were embryonic; also there was insufficient computing power to model what needed to be modeled.
Things have changed. The current Keenlyside paper is the result of modeling that can now be done. The sting in the tail is that the negative feedback would be temporary because a more stagnant ocean would become more quickly saturated with CO2. The oceans, till recently, have managed to absorb the man made carbon and methane excesses since the industrial revolution. There is a growing scientific consensus that ocean’s are near saturation point for CO2 uptake – I believe I sent you some links about that fairly recently.
The above is a gross simplification of complex feedback processes. The detail of how Climate change plays out is difficult to predict – such as when, precisely, the tipping point is reached after which whatever we do we are goners. However, as long as populations keep growing and deforestation increases, the natural balance between the green house gases and the agents that exchange them for oxygen is steadily being eroded; i.e. one side of the see saw is going to oscillate in the wrong direction once too often – and extremes of either an ice age, or a world which is too hot to sustain any life seems best to avoid.
The following quote from your link is predictably obvious cherry picking when viewed in the above context:
Climate alarmists the world over were quick to add that they had known all along there would be periods when the Earth's climate would cool even as the overall trend was toward dangerous climate change.
Sorry, but that is just so much backfill.
I have attached a paper (one of several) from Nature 1997 to show how, far from backfill, there has always been an ongoing debate of how the detail of climate change ebbs and flows around different centres – but always with NO happy ending as you will see from the 1997 paper; which itself of course, is fertile ground for easy cherry picking.
Also see the following quote, from stuff I sent you in Spring 2007 , which demonstrates the ongoing, well rehearsed strategy adopted by deniers (consumer druggies who obviously have a subliminal death wish – which includes taking everyone with them!), of which your link is but the latest example; there will be others!
Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4 (Professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT)
(This is an excellent article by a careful and honest scientist who was duped (by a TV “documentary” made by deniers); it gives some understanding of how difficult it is to communicate the complexities of man made climate change to an audience fed on undemanding simplifications – and how unscrupulous are the deniers).
…In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important - diametrically opposite to the point I was making - which is that global warming is both real and threatening...
2nd Mail:
Peter,
Thanks for the info.
The point I was trying to get across in the phone conversation was that after millennia of equilibrium, allowing for normal climate variations over the period, the heat being added to the atmosphere due to CO2 and its consequences since the industrial revolution - are now causing the equivalent of rapid changes of equilibrium in the atmospheric constituents (and their sources/sinks: vegetation etc). The analogy would be heating an already boiling kettle: the temperature changes very little until the water is all boiled away, and then it rises very rapidly. But although the temperature remains constant, the water in the kettle becomes increasingly volatile. In the case of the atmosphere, this volatility would be expressed by more frequent, and perhaps intense, extreme weather events; this continues until all the equilibrium changes in the atmospheric constituents cease at a new equilibrium – which hopefully isn’t like the atmosphere of Venus where any mixture of gases and their sources/sinks (water/vegation/animals etc) that may have existed have been replaced with 100% CO2 and no life. On earth of course, there may result intermediate points of equilibrium with simpler organisms than now in the mix; i.e. no humans – but perhaps there is a more selective way of eliminating climate skeptics.
The above speculation would be reflected in decadal (say) time slices of extreme weather events around the globe (suitably “normalized”) if the frequency of extremes from decade to decade showed a systematic increase. Ideally, a graph of this increasing frequency would follow the much criticised “hockey stick” profile, and thereby provide an independent confirmation of it based purely on known thermodynamic processes and chemistry.
so is climate changing or not? keep it simple please, this is not a college course. Based on the amount of fur my dog is shedding, I'd say we got some climate change. That's my scientific input.
One dry year because of La Nina and a semi-stationary high pressure area, does not climate change make. It happens every summer to a lesser or greater extenet, as this summer has shown.You post is too long George, and I don't have time to read it in detail.
You talk of "doing something". Like what exactly? The American people are not going to give up their standard of living because of some wacky hypothesis. And neither is the rest of the developed world. Whatever happens we will have to adapt to and learn to live with.
Wally,
It is too long but I tried to get round the yah boo stuff. Your reaction, and similar one from JJ-31... shows that. Your reaction is no different than anyone elses who is too busy to get into the issues properly. So I guess man made climate change is going to play out the "hard way" that I indicated in my too long post; i.e. Americans will go on as they are now; their economy will collapse, hence the worlds - so pollution will dramatically decrease also. ProJobs grandchildren will have no jobs to go to, and so on. As to being a wacky hypothesis: all of the green house gases are being increased by pollution and overpopulation and vegetation decrease. Basically the western world has been crapping in the atmosphere for the past 200 years (and the other two thirds of the world are about to do the same); the troposphere which supports life is, compared to the dimensions of the earth, the thickness of a cigarette paper. Also, variations in the earth's temperature due to variations in the sun's output are minor compared to green house gas changes e.g Mercury, closer to sun and little CO2, gets 4x suns energy than Venus yet its surface temperature is half that of Venus - which has 100% CO2.
Incidentally, it wasn't until the stench from the Thames stopped politicians attending parliment that they enacted legislation (copied everywhere since) to cleanup water supplies. Up till then the greatest cause of death was water borne diseases from pollution (dumping crap in the rivers etc), the privately owned water companie did nothing about- disease such as Typhus, Cholera, Dysentry etc.
As one of your politicians (Joe Barton) said CO2 is natural (as is crap) and therefore cannot be the cause of global warming. It is also invisible so less obvious, and the climate change it causes will be incremental.
As to what to do: Don't vote Republican, they quite sincerely; e.g. Joe Barton, find man made climate impossible to accept. You live in a democracy, and if enough people became informed enough polticians would get the message. There is still time.
But, as I said, it looks like the world is going to learn the hard way from America's economic collapse.
Hey though, "...always look on the bright side of life, dee dum, dee dum..."
So, George, the United States of America is to blame for all of the worlds problems. Including the worlds climate change. Is that what they are teaching in UK schools? Should you not include Russia, South America and most European countrys. Isn't the entire worlds population driving the automobiles, creating poluting industries? You seem to only point the finger in one direction.
Shawn,
Sorry that was not my intent (to blame America etc). The point I was trying to make is that for geopolitical and historical reasons America is the leader of the Western world because they were freed from the baggage of the past that constrained ancient civilisations such as India, China, Persia etc. to follow precedent handed down through generations and hence the rigid, undemocratic hierarchical structures that pertained for centuries. The birth of democracy in Greece provided the catalyst from which the industrial revolution in England grew and which is the foundation of the technological world we now live in and in which America is a principal player, and is why 5% of the world's population cause 25% of its pollution. This was not intentional but a historical consequence of being pioneers. However, the developing world are now copying the blueprint established by America; e.g. the Chinese and Indians who were largely vegetarian, are developing a taste for meat, hence methane producing cattle, deforestation etc. etc. Basically around two thirds of the world's population (which is increasing) are about to do what the West has done for 200 years and which has already led to global warming. However, if America gets it act together it could be pioneers in new technology and therefore profit in all sorts of ways. However, this requires investment, and hence the lead from politicians to do subsidise new industries. Instead, at the moment (as the posts show) American ingenuity is being absorbed in necessary, but un-focused firefighting; un-focused, because without a strategy to wean America away from fossil fuels, the firefighting will grow and have no end. The danger is that it will then become the norm rather like obesity is becoming the norm in the West (when everyone is fat, no one is fat). The end game will then come into play because, as the dust bowls of the 30s show, America is on a climate cusp which makes it highly sensitive to perturbations to normal climate variations caused by man made additions, and there is a high probability that it will become locked into semi-permanent drought. As a major food exporter this will have world wide consequences in a world already short of food. The overall effect on America will be devastating; as America is also the engine of the world's economy, the world's economy will also shrink. This would be Nature's rather blunt response to increased greenhouse gases. In essence, the world would learn the hard way from America's "mistake", plus the economic collapse would "at a stroke" take out a large percentage of CO2 pollution and so buy time for the rest of the world to adapt. There is a certain morbid logic in all this which a celestial being might have included when he/she/it granted free will to beings with opposable thumbs.
yep, but the rest of the world is trying to find alternatives also (China, Russia, etc.) instead of spending billions on lies and ad campaigns denying that the problem even exists.
Germany reached 50% of daytime electricity production using solar recently, etc.
while here, political attack idiots think solar and alternative energy is even bigger voodoo then their economic theories
This will be used to raise prices. And they say the middle class isn't dying.
In all reality though, it's an election year, we don't have time to be worrying about petty things like the Mississippi drying up. We need to focus on who can make who look the worst.
Hard to believe that just a few years ago this was the same raging river that took out so many cities and homes.
It's so painful to read posts by folks like ProBusiness who like to pretend that they are experts on climate change science and natural cycles, but are misguided in so many ways. You don't go to a plumber when you need neurosurgery, why would you go to ProBusiness when you want to find out about climate change science? Folks spend years getting their PhDs to understand environmental systems and environmental cyling, then spend decades researching and studying it, yet apparently it's so simple that even ProBusiness can tell you what's what!
Well, you are apparently not a climate science and yet are trying to CONvince us you know what you are talking about.
Actually, I am, but part of the tactic of climate change deniers is to drag the debate down into back-and-forth on little details, arguing about the wrong spatial and temporal scales. It serves no purpose to get into a point-by-point rebuttal of ProBusiness and similar posts because the whole premise of their posts have an illogical or irrelevant starting point without appropriate historical or geological context. When I present climate change, I start from the most irrefutable facts (CO2 is rising, and it's rising because of human activities) and build from there. If people can't accept the fact that CO2 is rising, there's no point in going any further with the conversation.
Is probusiness trying to spead his disease again? I thought I shut that fool up weeks ago! But then again like a virus, he always tries to come out of the woodwork!
Pretty soon were gonna have to take the Mississippi river name away and rename it to the Mississippi stream!
We have to stop burning coal.
Not going to happen Doug...next bright idea?
In 1988 the lowest Cairo gage reading was 4.3'. The lowest reading yet this year was about 8.5', thus the river at Cairo has been 4+' deeper than 1988. The Corps of Engineer's dredges to a nine foot depth at a gage of 7.5'
I am THRILLED to see that the Army Corps of Engineers has a project going to dredge some of the Mississippi River. I was commenting about 2 weeks ago that this would be a PRIME opportunity to take advantage of the low water level. THANK YOU for whomever saw this as a chance to do good in a bad time. Now, what about some other areas using some Fed. funds, prison and welfare folks to help too!
Now would be a good time to put the Army Corps of Engineers to work and dredge a few deep channels in the Mighty Mississippi in the event this ever happens again...which it most assuredly will. Just like Katrina's devastating flooding effects, everyone bitches and bellows after the fact. Now is the time for action. I was in S.E. Asia, Laos and Vietnam. When it rains, they call it the rainy season and the Mekong is flooded beyond comprehension. When it doesn't rain, they call it the dry season, and some vessels have to travel miles down stream to avoid sand bars just to navigate up stream!! What a revelation of sorts? Dredge instead of bitch, Department of Interior or Commerce!! This would be money well spent.