[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

I'm confused (not the first time). You responded to my post and I answered you.

The Mississippi is very long and water levels can vary along its course. Reports from Memphis show a very shallow Mississippi. Obviously, the river where it meets the Gulf is not going to be low, the saltwater will flow upstream instead and lead to problems with New Orleans drinking water.

I used a search engine to learn about the varied river levels, the shipping issues, and the salt intrusion. As you did not have the same information, my assumption was you had not looked. Since you *have* looked but still did not see the same reports I don't know what else to suggest.

Yes, you are confused...

You initially commented that the "Upper" river levels had no bearing on New Orleans...

Hence, I responded that the "Lower" river levels were normal as of November 19th...

Then, you pivoted to say it's not about "River Levels", but "Water Flow"...

So, your confusion is causing more confusion, since it's hard to figure out what you're actually arguing about.

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Yes, you are confused...

You initially commented that the "Upper" river levels had no bearing on New Orleans...

Hence, I responded that the "Lower" river levels were normal as of November 19th...

Then, you pivoted to say it's not about "River Levels", but "Water Flow"...

So, your confusion is causing more confusion, since it's hard to figure out what you're actually arguing about.

Then let me try to clear it up…

The flooding was in the April/May timeframe up in Wisconsin and Minnesota. It is hard to imagine how a flooding event six months ago is affecting an area today, thousands of miles away.

Water levels do appear to be low in the Tennessee area which is affecting shipping. I did not see the location of the satay collected to generate the graph showing water levels in the lower Mississippi were normal. All I can assume is the satay was NOT collected near Tennessee.

The water levels in the New Orleans area are not lower than normal and they likely never are. The level of the Gulf controls those levels and I haven’t seen any reports that the Gulf is lower.

However, with lower water levels upstream, the volume of water flow is diminished which allows the Gulf to push up the river towards New Orleans. Recently, this salt incursion was found to be 63 miles upstream, close to New Orleans. This salt incursion is affecting the fresh water supply in the area.

It is a very long river. Different areas of the river are affected in different ways by the same drought conditions. Yes, there was Spring flooding in the far north but apparently that flooding six months ago was not enough to keep the river level high or the flow rate up today.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Then let me try to clear it up…

The flooding was in the April/May timeframe up in Wisconsin and Minnesota. It is hard to imagine how a flooding event six months ago is affecting an area today, thousands of miles away.

Water levels do appear to be low in the Tennessee area which is affecting shipping. I did not see the location of the satay collected to generate the graph showing water levels in the lower Mississippi were normal. All I can assume is the satay was NOT collected near Tennessee.

The water levels in the New Orleans area are not lower than normal and they likely never are. The level of the Gulf controls those levels and I haven’t seen any reports that the Gulf is lower.

However, with lower water levels upstream, the volume of water flow is diminished which allows the Gulf to push up the river towards New Orleans. Recently, this salt incursion was found to be 63 miles upstream, close to New Orleans. This salt incursion is affecting the fresh water supply in the area.

It is a very long river. Different areas of the river are affected in different ways by the same drought conditions. Yes, there was Spring flooding in the far north but apparently that flooding six months ago was not enough to keep the river level high or the flow rate up today.

But there is flooding/high water levels upstream, even. now... That would cause an increased water flow, no?

And the chart I gave the link to included Memphis, and it stated the water levels were normal. T=hat would lead one to beleieve the "water flow" was normal, as well...

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

But there is flooding/high water levels upstream, even. now... That would cause an increased water flow, no?

And the chart I gave the link to included Memphis, and it stated the water levels were normal. T=hat would lead one to beleieve the "water flow" was normal, as well...

Then I guess those reading the water levels in Memphis and observing the shipping problems last month were letting their lying eyes deceive them. I’m not planning to make a trip to Tenn. to see for myself.

NOAA also shows no current flooding in parts of Illinois and Missouri.

If there is flooding upstream then eventually the water will make its way downstream. The page I found earlier measuring the salt incursion showed it had moved two miles south in the last week. So yeah, things may be changing.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Then I guess those reading the water levels in Memphis and observing the shipping problems last month were letting their lying eyes deceive them. I’m not planning to make a trip to Tenn. to see for myself.

NOAA also shows no current flooding in parts of Illinois and Missouri.

If there is flooding upstream then eventually the water will make its way downstream. The page I found earlier measuring the salt incursion showed it had moved two miles south in the last week. So yeah, things may be changing.

The upper part of the river is controlled by locks and dams.The lower part of the river is not. An update, written 4 days ago, states prolonged drought has caused shipping problems because the river is narrow and shallow. I googled the words Mississippi River Drought since this is what is being questioned. From what I read and saw on videos, the Mississippi is at historic low levels.

I would assume if they opened the dams, there is not enough water to fill the river. This would cause complications along the entire river. The puzzling question for scientists is which will win? The upward flow of the ocean or the downward flow of the river.

[Byte1]

Maybe we can contract the Chinese to fix the river. After all, they widened the Panama canal not too long ago. Man may not be able to train the weather but man can fix the side effects of weather. Probably cheaper than the fools errand of attempting to control the weather.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Then I guess those reading the water levels in Memphis and observing the shipping problems last month were letting their lying eyes deceive them. I’m not planning to make a trip to Tenn. to see for myself.

NOAA also shows no current flooding in parts of Illinois and Missouri.

If there is flooding upstream then eventually the water will make its way downstream. The page I found earlier measuring the salt incursion showed it had moved two miles south in the last week. So yeah, things may be changing.

Then I guess the link I posted, dated 11/19, showing normal river levels, was wrong as well...

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

Then I guess the link I posted, dated 11/19, showing normal river levels, was wrong as well...

Perhaps not wrong, just misleading.

Note that every line says either Normal or Not Defined but with no definition of what Normal means.

Every line also shows no flooding.

Some measurements for height in the northern section are 600+ feet. How can the river be running at 600ft above its typical level without that being a flood level?

Note that the Memphis height is -9ft which matches the NOAA chart.

To me, "Normal" is not informative. The heights *might* be useful but the 600+ measurements call those into question as well.

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

Perhaps not wrong, just misleading.

Note that every line says either Normal or Not Defined but with no definition of what Normal means.

Every line also shows no flooding.

Some measurements for height in the northern section are 600+ feet. How can the river be running at 600ft above its typical level without that being a flood level?

Note that the Memphis height is -9ft which matches the NOAA chart.

To me, "Normal" is not informative. The heights *might* be useful but the 600+ measurements call those into question as well.

But your link is accurate and not misleading? If you say so...

[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by JMintzer

But your link is accurate and not misleading? If you say so...

Point out the inconsistencies in the NOAA data if you don't trust it.

Heck, I pointed out that where the two data sets can be easily compared, they match. They both show the river 9 feet below normal in Memphis. They both say there is no flooding along the river.

Are you really arguing that the river is over 600 feet above typical at several points but that is not a flood level and is just Normal?

[Lottoguy]

Has not been called GLOBAL WARMING in almost ten years now. CLIMATE CHANGE is the wording now. It's easy to tell where you fall on this by using such a old outdated phrase.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Acordionist

Global warming affects ALL the seasons. We should learn more about the scientific and proven effects of it instead of dismissing it

I think you’re confused between global warming and climate changes.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Two Bills

Contrails?
Think you need to read up on how modern day solar panels work.

So when sun don’t shine why does my solar light in back yard go dime or won’t come at night when day was cloudy???

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Lottoguy

Has not been called GLOBAL WARMING in almost ten years now. CLIMATE CHANGE is the wording now. It's easy to tell where you fall on this by using such a old outdated phrase.

Yes, the term was changed so it fit the best look to still collect funds for politicians and scientists. Global warming wasn’t working out well. Climate change has more support because the term encompasses more ideas.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Normal

Yes, the term was changed so it fit the best look to still collect funds for politicians and scientists. Global warming wasn’t working out well. Climate change has more support because the term encompasses more ideas.

Climate change encompasses global warming. They are two different things. One is not a substitute for the other.

Global Warming: the warming of the planet (self explanatory) usually due to the greenhouse effect.

Climate Change: change in the weather over a long period of time (Again, self explanatory)

If you are talking about this year, which had record breaking, scorching heat, the cause is most likely global warming. It may sound counterintuitive but global warming includes snowstorms.

Climate change is change in weather for an extended period of time. You can say because of the same conditions happening in certain areas over the last few years, there has been a change in climate.